Pp.

528- 534

Congress enacted a special law that criminalizes hazing due to the death of Leonardo Villa, the intent of
which was to discourage hazing to be a requirement to be a part of any Frat, Soro, or organization. The
made it mala prohibita so as not to invoke the defense that there was consent or initial innocent act.
Sadly, after Lennys death 6 more happened.

Even if an act is viewed by a large section of the populace as immoral or injurious, it cannot be
considered a crime, absent any law prohibiting its commission.

6 Aspiring student of Ateneo Law wanted to join the fraternity Aquila. They were subjected to threats
and inflicted pain as part of their initiation which lasted 3 days. They survived the 1st day, but on the 2nd
day additional beatings and paddlings were inflicted on them by command of the senior fraternity
members during which Lenny was beaten so bad he could not stand up and had difficulty breathing.
Lenny subsequently died that night and a case of homicide was filed against 35 Aquilans. 26 of them
were charged with Homicide with reclusion temporal. The CA then set aside the finding of conspiracy
and accused each according to individual participation.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Pp. 591 596

Prior to the 1995 Anti-Hazing Law, there was to some extent a lacuna in the law; hazing was not clearly
considered an intentional felony. And when there is doubt on the interpretation of criminal laws, all
must be resolved in favor of the accused.

There was no malicious intent to inflict physical harm on Lenny as required by mala in se, since there
was no proof of this, considering the nature of hazing. However, even without intent, RPC penalizes
culpa. According to Article 3 thereof, there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. There was reckless imprudence or negligence; harm done
without malice but, inexcusable lack of precaution since in this case, the danger is visible and consciously
appreciated by the actor as opposed to Simple imprudence or negligence, where the danger is not as
apparent.

Test of negligence: would a prudent man have foreseen the harm? If so, it is duty to take precaution. If
this is not taken, there is negligence. There must be precaution and diligence in varying degrees of
danger, it is dependent on the circumstances of each case.

Consequently, the collective acts (multiple blows to Lenny + Drinking Alcohol) of the fraternity members
were tantamount to recklessness, which made the resulting death of Lenny a culpable felony.

Our finding of criminal liability for the felony of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide shall cover
only accused Tecson, Ama, Almeda, Bantug, and Dizon. Had the Anti-Hazing Law been in effect then,
these five accused fraternity members would have all been convicted of the crime of hazing punishable
by reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment). Since there was no law prohibiting the act of hazing when
Lenny died, we are constrained to rule according to existing laws at the time of his death.