Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
* SECOND DIVISION.
520
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
521
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
522
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
523
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
524
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
525
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
526
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
527
SERENO, J.:
The public outrage over the death of Leonardo “Lenny”
Villa—the victim in this case—on 10 February 1991 led to
a very strong clamor to put an end to hazing.1 Due in large
part to the brave efforts of his mother, petitioner Gerarda
Villa, groups were organized, condemning his senseless and
tragic death. This widespread condemnation prompted
Congress to enact a special law, which became effective in
1995, that would criminalize hazing.2 The intent of the law
was to discourage members from making hazing a
requirement for joining their sorority, fraternity,
organization, or association.3 Moreover, the law was meant
to counteract the exculpatory implications of “consent” and
“initial innocent act” in the conduct of initiation rites by
making the mere act of hazing punishable or mala
prohibita.4
_______________
1 Sponsorship Speech of former Senator Joey Lina, Senate Transcript
of Session Proceedings No. 34 (08 October 1992) 9th Congress, 1st Regular
Sess. at 21-22 [hereinafter Senate TSP No. 34].
2 Id.
3 Senate Transcript of Session Proceedings No. 47 (10 November 1992)
9th Congress, 1st Regular Sess. at 20-21, 24-27 [hereinafter Senate TSP
No. 47].
4 Id.; Senate Transcript of Session Proceedings No. 62 (14 December
1992) 9th Congress, 1st Regular Sess. at 15 [hereinafter Senate TSP No.
62].
529
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
Facts
_______________
5 Senate TSP No. 34, Id. note 1.
6 Id.
7 U.S. v. Taylor, 28 Phil. 599 (1914). The Court declared, “In the
Philippine Islands there exist no crimes such as are known in the United
States and England as common law crimes;” id., at p. 604.
8 CA Decision (People v. Dizon, CA-G.R. CR No. 15520), pp. 1-5; Rollo
(G.R. No. 151258), pp. 62-66.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
530
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
532
533
_______________
11 RTC Decision [Crim. Case No. C-38340(91)], p. 2, supra note 9;
Rollo, p. 110.
12 Id.
13 Id., at pp. 66-67; Rollo, pp. 175-176.
14 CA Decision (Escalona v. RTC, CA-G.R. SP No. 89060), p. 4; Rollo
(G.R. No. 178057), p. 131.
15 Penned by Associate Justice Eubulo G. Verzola and concurred in by
Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Eliezer R. de los Santos (with
Concurring Opinion).
534
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
16 RTC Decision (People v. Dizon, Crim. Case No. 38340), p. 21; Rollo
(G.R. No. 178057), p. 1114.
17 CA Decision (Escalona v. RTC), pp. 12-14, supra, note 14; Rollo, pp.
139-141.
18 Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and
concurred in by Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Hakim S.
Abdulwahid.
19 CA Decision (Escalona v. RTC), pp. 37-39, supra, note 14; Rollo, pp.
166-168.
535
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
20 Villareal’s Petition for Review (Villareal v. People, G.R. No. 151258),
p. 13; Rollo, p. 25.
21 Dizon’s Petition for Review (Dizon v. People, G.R. No. 155101), p. 1;
Rollo, p. 3.
22 Id., at p. 17; Rollo, p. 19.
536
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
23 Id., at p. 10; Rollo, p. 12.
24 Id., at p. 22; Rollo, p. 24.
25 Id., at p. 23; Rollo, p. 25.
26 Id., at pp. 23-24; Rollo, pp. 25-26.
27 Id., at p. 26; Rollo, p. 28.
537
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
28 People’s Petition for Certiorari (People v. CA, G.R. No. 154954), p. 2;
Rollo, p. 13.
29 Id., at p. 167; Rollo, p. 118.
538
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
Issues
_______________
30 Villa’s Petition for Review on Certiorari (Villa v. Escalona, G.R. Nos.
178057 and 178080), p. 1; Rollo, p. 84.
539
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
Discussion
_______________
31 Petralba v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 81337, 16 August 1991, 200
SCRA 644.
32 People v. Badeo, G.R. No. 72990, 21 November 1991, 204 SCRA 122,
citing J. Aquino’s Concurring Opinion in People v. Satorre, G.R. No. L-
26282, August 27, 1976, 72 SCRA 439.
540
_______________
33 People v. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, 2 September 1994, 236 SCRA
239; People v. Bunay, G.R. No. 171268, 14 September 2010, 630 SCRA
445.
34 People v. Bunay, supra, citing People v. Bayotas, supra.
35 CA Decision (People v. Dizon), p. 7, supra note 8; Rollo, p. 68.
36 Id.
37 Id.
541
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
38 Id.
39 Id., at pp. 7-8; Rollo, pp. 68-69.
40 Id., at p. 8; Rollo, p. 69.
41 Id.
42 People v. Banihit, 393 Phil. 465; 339 SCRA 86 (2000); People v.
Hernandez, 328 Phil. 1123; 260 SCRA 25 (1996), citing People v. Dichoso,
96 SCRA 957 (1980); and People v. Angco, 103 Phil. 33 (1958).
542
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
“Under Section 2(c), Rule 114 and Section 1(c), Rule 115 of the
Rules of Court, Crisostomo’s non-appearance during the 22
June 1995 trial was merely a waiver of his right to be
present for trial on such date only and not for the
succeeding trial dates…
xxx xxx xxx
Moreover, Crisostomo’s absence on the 22 June 1995 hearing
should not have been deemed as a waiver of his right to
present evidence. While constitutional rights may be waived,
such waiver must be clear and must be coupled with an
actual intention to relinquish the right. Crisostomo did not
voluntarily waive in person or even through his counsel the right
to present evidence. The Sandiganbayan imposed the waiver due
to the agreement of the prosecution, Calingayan, and
Calingayan’s counsel.
In criminal cases where the imposable penalty may be death,
as in the present case, the court is called upon to see to it
that the accused is personally made aware of the
consequences of a waiver of the right to present evidence.
In fact, it is not enough that the accused is simply warned
of the consequences of another failure to attend the
succeed-
_______________
43 People v. Hapa, 413 Phil. 679; 361 SCRA 361 (2001), citing People v. Diaz,
311 SCRA 585 (1999).
44 People v. Hapa, supra, citing Parada v. Veneracion, 336 Phil. 354, 360; 269
SCRA 371, 377 (1997).
45 Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan, 495 Phil. 718; 456 SCRA 45 (2005).
543
_______________
46 Id.
47 People v. Bodoso, 446 Phil. 838; 398 SCRA 642 (2003).
48 Id.
544
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
49 Dizon’s Petition for Review, supra note 21 at p. 20; Rollo, p. 22.
50 Id., at p. 23; Rollo, p. 25.
545
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
51 Villa’s Petition for Review on Certiorari, supra note 30 at p. 19;
Rollo, p. 102.
52 People v. Hernandez, G.R. Nos. 154218 & 154372, 28 August 2006,
499 SCRA 688.
53 People v. Tampal, 314 Phil. 35; 244 SCRA 202 (1995), citing
Gonzales v. Sandiganbayan, 199 SCRA 298 (1991); Acebedo v. Sarmiento,
146 Phil. 820; 36 SCRA 247 (1970).
54 People v. Tampal, supra; Acebedo v. Sarmiento, supra.
55 People v. Tampal, supra.
56 Id.
57 Id.
58 People v. Hernandez, supra note 52, citing People v. Tampal, supra;
Philippine Savings Bank v. Spouses Bermoy, 471 SCRA 94, 107 (2005);
People v. Bans, 239 SCRA 48 (1994); People v. Declaro, 170 SCRA 142
(1989); and People v. Quizada, 160 SCRA 516 (1988).
59 See People v. Hernandez, supra note 52.
546
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
60 Id.
61 Id.
62 Id.
547
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
63 CA Decision (Escalona v. RTC), pp. 24-30, supra note 14; Rollo, pp. 151-157.
64 Id., at 4; Rollo, p. 131.
65 Id.
66 Id.
67 Abardo v. Sandiganbayan, 407 Phil. 985; 355 SCRA 641 (2001).
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
548
_______________
68 Id.
69 Melo v. People, 85 Phil. 766 (1950).
70 Id.
71 Id.
72 Id.
549
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
Rule 117, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, which
implements this particular constitutional right, provides as
follows:73
_______________
73 People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 168982, 5 August 2009, 595 SCRA 438.
74 Id.; People v. Court of Appeals, 368 Phil. 169; 308 SCRA 687 (1999).
75 People v. Velasco, 394 Phil. 517; 340 SCRA 207 (2000), citing Rules
on Criminal Procedure, Rule 117, Sec 7; Paulin v. Gimenez, G.R. No.
103323, 21 January 1993, 217 SCRA 386; Commission on Elections v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108120, 26 January 1994, 229 SCRA 501;
People v. Court of Appeals, supra note 74.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
550
_______________
76 People v. Court of Appeals and Galicia, G.R. No. 159261, 21
February 2007, 516 SCRA 383, 397, citing People v. Serrano, 315 SCRA
686, 689 (1999).
77 People v. Court of Appeals and Galicia, supra, citing People v.
Velasco, 340 SCRA 207, 240 (2000).
78 Galman v. Sandiganbayan, 228 Phil. 42; 144 SCRA 43 (1986), citing
People v. Bocar, 138 SCRA 166 (1985); Combate v. San Jose, 135 SCRA
693 (1985); People v. Catolico, 38 SCRA 389 (1971); and People v. Navarro,
63 SCRA 264 (1975).
79 People v. Court of Appeals and Galicia, supra 76 [citing People v.
Tria-Tirona, 463 SCRA 462, 469-470 (2005); and People v. Velasco, 340
SCRA 207 (2000)]; People v. Court of Appeals and Francisco, 468 Phil. 1;
423 SCRA 605 (2004); Galman v. Sandiganbayan, supra, citing People v.
Bocar, supra.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
80 People v. Court of Appeals and Galicia, supra note 76, citing People
v. Serrano, supra note 76 at p. 690; People v. De Grano, G.R. No. 167710, 5
June 2009, 588 SCRA 550.
551
_______________
81 People v. Nazareno, supra note 73; De Vera v. De Vera, G.R. No.
172832, 7 April 2009, 584 SCRA 506.
82 People v. Nazareno, supra note 73; De Vera v. De Vera, supra.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
552
_______________
87 Id., at pp. 82-86; Rollo, pp. 93-97.
88 See Francisco v. Desierto, G.R. No. 154117, 2 October 2009, 602
SCRA 50, citing First Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 171989, 4
July 2007, 526 SCRA 564, 578.
89 People v. Court of Appeals, supra note 74, citing Teknika Skills and
Trade Services v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 273 SCRA 10
(1997).
90 People v. Court of Appeals, supra note 74, citing Medina v. City
Sheriff of Manila, 276 SCRA 133, (1997); Jamer v. National Labor
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
Relations Commission, 278 SCRA 632 (1997); and Azores v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 252 SCRA 387 (1996).
91 De Vera v. De Vera, supra note 81; People v. Dela Torre, 430 Phil.
420; 380 SCRA 596 (2002); People v. Leones, 418 Phil. 804; 366 SCRA 535
(2001); People v. Ruiz, 171 Phil. 400; 81 SCRA 453 (1978); People v.
Pomeroy, 97 Phil. 927 (1955), citing People v. Ang Cho Kio, 95 Phil. 475
(1954).
553
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 36/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
92 See generally People v. Court of Appeals and Galicia, supra note 76;
and People v. Court of Appeals and Francisco, supra note 79.
93 CA Decision (People v. Dizon), pp. 21-22, supra note 8; Rollo, pp. 82-
83.
94 People v. Penesa, 81 Phil. 398 (1948).
95 CA Decision (People v. Dizon), pp. 21-22, supra note 8; Rollo, pp. 82-
83.
554
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 37/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
96 People v. Penesa, supra note 94.
97 Id.
98 Id.
99 CA Decision (People v. Dizon), p. 16, supra note 8; Rollo, p. 77.
100 Id., at p. 21; Rollo, p. 82.
101 Id.
555
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 38/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
102 See footnote 1 of Corpus v. Paje, 139 Phil. 429; 28 SCRA 1062
(1969).
103 RTC Decision [Crim. Case No. C-38340(91)], p. 61, supra note 9;
Rollo, p. 170.
104 Id., at p. 58; Rollo, p. 167.
556
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 39/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
105 RAMON C. AQUINO, THE REVISED PENAL CODE – Volume One 3 (1961);
see People v. Estrada, 389 Phil. 216; 333 SCRA 699 (2000); People v.
Sandiganbayan, 341 Phil. 503; 275 SCRA 505 (1997).
106 VICENTE J. FRANCISCO, THE REVISED PENAL CODE: ANNOTATED AND
COMMENTED – BOOK ONE 4 (3rd ed. 1958); see People v. Estrada, supra.
107 FRANCISCO, supra at p. 4; People v. Estrada, supra.
557
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 40/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
108 AQUINO, supra note 105 at p. 3.
109 Id.
110 GUILLERMO B. GUEVARA, PENAL SCIENCES AND PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW
6 (1974).
111 People v. Sandiganbayan, 341 Phil. 503; 275 SCRA 505 (1997).
112 FRANCISCO, supra note 106 at p. 33.
113 Id., at pp. 33-34.
114 MARIANO A. ALBERT, THE REVISED PENAL CODE (ACT NO. 3815) 21-24
(1946).
115 Id., at p. 21.
116 Id., at p. 21.
117 Guevarra v. Almodovar, 251 Phil. 427; 169 SCRA 476 (1989), citing
46 CJS Intent 1103.
118 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 670 (8th abr. ed. 2005); see People v.
Regato, 212 Phil. 268; 127 SCRA 287 (1984).
119 Guevarra v. Almodovar, supra note 117.
558
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 41/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
120 ALBERT, supra note 114 at p. 23.
121 People v. Ballesteros, 349 Phil. 366; 285 SCRA 438 (1998); Bagajo v.
Marave, 176 Phil. 20; 86 SCRA 389 (1978), citing People v. Molineux, 168
N.Y. 264, 297; 61 N.E. 286, 296; 62 L.R.A. 193.
122 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, supra note 118 at p. 520.
123 See FRANCISCO, supra note 106 at p. 34; ALBERT, supra note 114 at
pp. 23-25.
124 U.S. v. Catolico, 18 Phil. 504 (1911); U.S. v. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 488
(1910).
125 U.S. v. Barnes, 8 Phil. 59 (1907); Dado v. People, 440 Phil. 521; 392
SCRA 46 (2002), citing Mondragon v. People, 17 SCRA 476, 481 (1966);
People v. Villanueva, 51 Phil. 488 (1928); U.S. v. Reyes, 30 Phil. 551
(1915); U.S. v. Mendoza, 38 Phil. 691 (1918); People v. Montes, 53 Phil. 323
(1929); People v. Pacusbas, 64 Phil. 614 (1937); and People v. Penesa,
supra note 94.
559
_______________
126 People v. Fallorina, 468 Phil. 816; 424 SCRA 655 (2004), citing
People v. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257 (1943); FRANCISCO, supra note 106 at pp. 51-
52, citing People v. Sara, 55 Phil. 939 (1931).
127 See generally FRANCISCO, supra note 106 at p. 51.
128 Id., at p. 52; People v. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257 (1943), citing People v.
Nanquil, 43 Phil. 232 (1922); People v. Bindoy, 56 Phil. 15 (1931).
129 Mahawan v. People, G.R. No. 176609, 18 December 2008, 574
SCRA 737, citing Rivera v. People, G.R. No. 166326, 25 January 2006, 480
SCRA 188, 196-197.
130 People v. Quijada, 328 Phil. 505; 259 SCRA 191 (1996).
131 Mahawan v. People, supra note 129, citing Rivera v. People, supra
note 129.
132 Dado v. People, supra note 125.
133 People v. Delim, 444 Phil. 430, 450; 396 SCRA 386 (2003), citing
WHARTON, CRIMINAL LAW—Vol. 1, 473-474 (12th ed., 1932).
134 See People v. Garcia, 467 Phil. 1102; 425 SCRA 221 (2004), citing
PEOPLE V. CARMEN, G.R. No. 137268, 26 March 2001, 355 SCRA 267; U.S. v.
560
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 43/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
Tayongtong, 21 Phil. 476 (1912); see generally U.S. v. Maleza, 14 Phil.
468 (1909).
135 A. Catherine Kendrick, Ex Parte Barran: In Search of Standard
Legislation for Fraternity Hazing Liability, 24 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 407
(2000).
136 Id.
137 In re Khalil H., No. 08110, 2010 WL 4540458 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov.
9, 2010) (U.S.) [citing Kuzmich, Comment, In Vino Mortuus: Fraternal
Hazing and Alcohol-Related Deaths, 31 MCGEORGE L REV. 1087, 1088-1089
(2000); and SYMPOSIUM, THE WORKS OF PLATO (THE MODERN LIBRARY 1956)];
Gregory E. Rutledge, Hell Night Hath No Fury Like a Pledge Scorned ...
and Injured: Hazing Litigation in U.S. Colleges and Universities, 25 J.C.
& U.L. 361, 368-9 (1998); Kendrick, 24 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC.
138 In re Khalil H., supra; Rutledge, supra.
139 Jamie Ball, This Will Go Down on Your Permanent Record (But
We’ll Never Tell): How the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act
May Help Colleges and Universities Keep Hazing a Secret, 33 Sw. U. L.
Rev. 477, 480 (2004), citing Rutledge, supra.
140 Id.
141 Id.
561
_______________
142 Kendrick, supra note 135, citing Scott Patrick McBride, Comment,
Freedom of Association in the Public University Setting: How Broad is the
Right to Freely Participate in Greek Life?, 23 U. DAYTON L. REV. 133, 147-8
(1997).
143 Id.
144 Id.
145 Id., citing Ex parte Barran, 730 So.2d 203 (Ala. 1998) (U.S.).
146 See generally Sec. 1, Republic Act No. 8049 (1995), otherwise
known as the Anti-Hazing Law.
147 Id.
148 In re Khalil H., supra note 137, citing WEBSTER’S THIRD
INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, 1041 (1986); and People v. Lenti, 44 Misc.2d
118, 253 N.Y.S.2d 9 (N.Y. Nassau County Ct. 1964) (U.S.).
149 See generally Republic Act No. 8049 (1995), Sec. 1, otherwise
known as the Anti-Hazing Law; Susan Lipkins, Hazing: Defining and
Understanding Psychological Damages, 2 Ann.2007 AAJ-CLE 2481 (2007).
562
_______________
150 REYNALDO C. ILETO, THE DIORAMA EXPERIENCE: A VISUAL HISTORY OF
563
_______________
157 STEPHEN E. AMBROSE, DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY: A HISTORY OF WEST
POINT 222 (1999).
158 Id.
159 Easler v. Hejaz Temple of Greenville, 285 S.C. 348, 329 S.E.2d 753
(S.C. 1985) (U.S.). (The South Carolina Supreme Court held, inter alia,
that (1) evidence supported the jury finding that the manner in which the
association carried out “mattress-rotating barrel trick,” a hazing event,
was hazardous and constituted actionable negligence; and (2) the
candidate was not barred from recovery by the doctrine of assumption of
risk. Id.)
160 Id.
161 Id.
162 Id.
163 CNN U.S., Pentagon Brass Disgusted by Marine Hazing Ceremony,
January 31, 1997, available at<http://articles.cnn.com/1997-01-
31/us/9701_31_hazing_1_hazing-incident-camp-lejeune-marines?
_s=PM:US> (visited 3 December 2010); see also Gregory E. Rutledge, Hell
Night Hath No Fury Like a Pledge Scorned ... and Injured: Hazing
Litigation in U.S. Colleges and Universities, 25 J.C. & U.L. 361, 364
(1998).
564
bare soles of the feet and buttocks; blows to the back with
the use of a heavy book and a cookie sheet while the
pledges were on their hands and knees; various kicks and
punches to the body; and “body slamming,” an activity in
which active members of the fraternity lifted pledges up in
the air and dropped them to the ground.166 The fraternity
members then put the pledges through a seven-station
circle of physical abuse.167
In Ex Parte Barran, decided in 1998, the pledge-victim
went through hazing by fraternity members of the Kappa
Alpha Order at the Auburn University in Alabama.168 The
hazing included the following: (1) having to dig a ditch and
jump into it after it had been filled with water, urine, feces,
dinner leftovers, and vomit; (2) receiving paddlings on the
buttocks; (3) being pushed and kicked, often onto walls or
into pits and trash cans; (4) eating foods like peppers, hot
sauce, butter, and “yerks” (a mixture of hot sauce,
mayonnaise, but-
_______________
164 CNN U.S., supra; see also Rutledge, supra.
165 State v. Allen, 905 S.W.2d 874, 875 (Mo. 1995) (U.S.). (One of the
pledges – Michael Davis – blacked out and never regained consciousness.
He died the following afternoon. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed
the trial court’s conviction of hazing. Id.)
166 Id.
167 Id.
168 Ex parte Barran, 730 So.2d 203 (Ala. 1998) (U.S.). (The Alabama
Supreme Court ruled that the (1) pledge knew and appreciated the risks
inherent in hazing; and (2) pledge voluntarily exposed himself to hazing,
supporting the fraternity’s assumption of the risk defense. Consequently,
the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and
reinstated the ruling of the trial court, which entered the summary
judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to the victim’s negligence
claims. The case was remanded as to the other matters. Id.)
565
ter, beans, and other items); (5) doing chores for the
fraternity and its members, such as cleaning the fraternity
house and yard, being designated as driver, and running
errands; (6) appearing regularly at 2 a.m. “meetings,”
during which the pledges would be hazed for a couple of
hours; and (7) “running the gauntlet,” during which the
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 48/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
169 Id.
170 Lloyd v. Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, No. 96-CV-348, 97-CV-565,
1999 WL 47153 (Dist. Ct., N.D. N.Y., 1999) (U.S.). (The plaintiff filed a
law suit against Cornell University for the latter’s liability resulting from
the injuries the former sustained during the alleged hazing by the
fraternity. The New York district court granted defendant Cornell’s
motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint. Id.)
171 Id.
172 Kenner v. Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc., 808 A.2d 178 (Pa.
Super.Ct. 2002). (The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that: (1) the
fraternity owed the duty to protect the initiate from harm; (2) breach of
duty by fraternity was not established; (3) individual fraternity members
owed the duty to protect the initiate from harm; and (4) the evidence
raised the genuine issue of material fact as to whether the fraternity's
chapter advisor breached the duty of care to initiate. Id.)
173 Id.
566
_______________
174 Morton v. State, 988 So.2d 698 (Flo. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (U.S.).
(The District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed the conviction for felony
hazing and remanded the case for a new trial because of erroneous jury
instruction. Id.)
175 Id.
176 Id.
177 Id.
178 Id.
179 Id.
180 Rutledge, supra note 137.
181 Rutledge, supra note 137, citing Fraternity Hazing: Is that Anyway
to Treat a Brother?, TRIAL, September 1991, at p. 63.
182 Rutledge, supra note 137, [citing Robert D. Bickel & Peter F. Lake,
Reconceptualizing the University’s Duty to Provide A Safe Learning
Environment: A Criticism of the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis and the
Restatement (Second) of Torts, 20 J.C. & U.L. 261 (1994); Jennifer L.
Spaziano, It’s All Fun and Games Until Someone Loses an Eye: An
Analysis of University Liability for Actions of Student Organizations, 22
Pepp. L. Rev. 213 (1994);
567
_______________
Fraternity Hazing: Is that Anyway to Treat a Brother?, TRIAL, Sept.
1991, at p. 63; and Byron L. Leflore, Jr., Alcohol and Hazing Risks in
College Fraternities: Re-evaluating Vicarious and Custodial Liability of
National Fraternities, 7 Rev. Litig. 191, 210 (1988)].
183 Darryll M. Halcomb Lewis, The Criminalization of Fraternity, Non-
Fraternity and Non-Collegiate Hazing, 61 Miss. L.J. 111, 117 (1991), citing
Benjamin, The Trouble at the Naval Academy, 60 The Independent 154,
155 (1906). According to Lewis, the 1874 statute outlawing hazing was
directed specifically at the United States Naval Academy.
184 Gregory L. Acquaviva, Protecting Students from the Wrongs of
Hazing Rites: A Proposal for Strengthening New Jersey’s Anti-Hazing Act,
26 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 305, 311 (2008), citing Lewis, supra note Error:
Reference source not found at p. 118.
185 Acquaviva, supra, citing Lewis, supra note Error: Reference source
not found at pp. 118-119.
186 Acquaviva, supra, citing Lewis, supra note Error: Reference source
not found at p. 119.
187 Acquaviva, supra at p. 313.
188 Amie Pelletier, Note, Regulation of Rites: The Effect and
Enforcement of Current Anti-Hazing Statutes, 28 NEW ENG. J. ON CRIM. &
CIV. CONFINEMENT 377, 377 (2002).
189 Id.
568
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 51/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
190 Id., citing 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 120/10 (1992) (U.S.).
191 730 ILCS 5/5-8-2 (West, Westlaw through P.A. 96-1482 of the 2010
Sess.) (U.S.).
192 Pelletier, supra note 188, citing Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-2-2 (U.S.).
193 Pelletier, supra note 188, citing Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-2-2 (U.S.).
194 Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-2-2 (West, Westlaw through 2010 Sess.)
(U.S.) citing State v. Lewis, 883 N.E.2d 847 (Ind. App. 2008) (U.S.).
195 Ind. Code Ann. § 35-50-2-6 (West, Westlaw through 2010 Sess.)
(U.S.).
196 Pelletier, supra note 188, citing Mo. Rev. Stat. § 578.365 (2001)
(U.S.).
197 Mo. Stat. Ann. § 558.011 (West, Westlaw through 2010 First
Extraordinary Gen. Ass. Sess.).
198 Pelletier, supra note 188, citing Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 37.152
(Vernon 1996) (U.S.).
569
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 52/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
199 Tex. Stat. Code Ann., Penal Code § 12.35 (Vernon, Westlaw
through 2009 Legis. Sess.) (U.S.).
200 Pelletier, supra note 188, citing Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-107.5
(1999) (U.S.).
201 Utah Code Ann. 1953 § 76-3-203 (Westlaw through 2010 Gen.
Sess.) (U.S.).
202 Pelletier, supra note 188, citing W. Va. Code § 18-16-3 (1999)
(U.S.).
203 See Pelletier, supra note 188, citing Wis. Stat. § 948.51 (1996)
(U.S.).
204 Wis. Stat. Ann. § 939.50 (Westlaw through 2009 Act 406) (U.S.).
205 Pelletier, supra note 188 at p. 381.
206 Id.
570
The trial court, the CA, and the Solicitor General are all
in agreement that—with the exception of Villareal and
Dizon—accused Tecson, Ama, Almeda, and Bantug did not
have the animus interficendi or intent to kill Lenny Villa or
the other neophytes. We shall no longer disturb this
finding.
As regards Villareal and Dizon, the CA modified the
Decision of the trial court and found that the two accused
had the animus interficendi or intent to kill Lenny Villa,
not merely to inflict physical injuries on him. It justified its
finding of homicide against Dizon by holding that he had
apparently been motivated by ill will while beating up
Villa. Dizon kept repeating that his father’s parking space
had been stolen by the victim’s father.207 As to Villareal,
the court said that the accused suspected the family of
Bienvenido Marquez, one of the neophytes, to have had a
hand in the death of Villareal’s brother.208 The CA then
ruled as follows:
The two had their own axes to grind against Villa and
Marquez. It was very clear that they acted with evil and criminal
intent. The evidence on this matter is unrebutted and so for the
death of Villa, appellants Dizon and Villareal must and
should face the consequence of their acts, that is, to be
held liable for the crime of homicide.209 (Emphasis supplied)
_______________
208 Id.
209 Id.
571
572
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 55/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
573
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 56/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
574
when a talk was being given, Dizon was on another part
of the pelota court and I was sort of looking and we saw
that he was drinking beer, and he said and I quote:
“Marquez, Marquez, ano ang tinitingin-tingin mo
diyan, ikaw yung pamilya mo ang nagpapatay sa
aking kapatid, yari ka sa akin,” sir.
Atty. Tadiar What else?
Witness That’s all, sir.
Atty. Tadiar And on that first night of February 8, 1991, did ever a
doctor or a physician came around as promised to you
earlier?
Witness No, sir.210 (Emphasis supplied)
_______________
210 TSN, 21 April 1992 (People v. Dizon, Crim. Case No. C-38340), pp.
68-72, 90-91, 100-102, 108-109, 127-134.
575
_______________
211 TSN, 26 May 1992 (People v. Dizon, Crim. Case No. C-38340), pp.
29-32, 43.
576
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 59/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
577
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 60/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
212 TSN, 3 June 1992 (People v. Dizon, Crim. Case No. C-38340), pp.
24-28.
213 People’s Comment (Dizon v. People, G.R. No. 155101), p. 131; Rollo,
p. 626; People’s Comment (Villareal v. People, G.R. No. 151258), p. 120-
123; Rollo, pp. 727-730.
214 People’s Comment (Dizon v. People, G.R. No. 155101), pp. 130-131;
Rollo, pp. 625-626; People’s Comment (Villareal v. People, G.R. No.
151258), pp. 120-123; Rollo, pp. 727-730.
578
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 61/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
215 RTC Decision [Crim. Case No. C-38340(91)], pp. 18-35, supraRollo,
pp. 127-144.
216 People’s Comment (Dizon v. People, G.R. No. 155101), pp. 130-131;
Rollo, pp. 625-626; People’s Comment (Villareal v. People, G.R. No.
151258), pp. 120-123; Rollo, pp. 727-730.
579
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 62/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
217 Senate TSP No. 51 (17 November 1992) 9th Congress, 1st Regular
Sess., pp. 12-13.
218 TSN, 21 April 1992 (People v. Dizon, Crim. Case No. C-38340), pp.
68-72, 90-91, 100-102, 108-109, 127-134; see TSN, 26 May 1992 (People v.
Dizon, Crim. Case No. C-38340), pp. 29-32, 43; and TSN, 3 June 1992
(People v. Dizon, Crim. Case No. C-38340), pp. 24-28.
580
_______________
219 RTC Decision [Crim. Case No. C-38340(91)], p. 58, supra note 9;
Rollo, p. 167.
220 Dado v. People, supra note 125.
221 RTC Decision [Crim. Case No. C-38340(91)], p. 58, supra note 9;
Rollo, p. 167.
222 The aforementioned articles refer to the Revised Penal Code
provisions on Physical Injuries. These are the following: (a) Art. 262—
Mutilation; (b) Art. 263—Serious Physical Injuries; (c) Art. 264—
Administering Injurious Substances or Beverages; (d) Art. 265—Less
Serious Physical Injuries; and, (e) Art. 266—Slight Physical Injuries and
Maltreatment.
581
_______________
223 Cf. United States v. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 488 (1910); and Calimutan
v. People, 517 Phil. 272; 482 SCRA 44 (2006).
224 Cf. Calimutan v. People, supra, citing People v. Carmen, 407 Phil.
564; 355 SCRA 267 (2001); People v. Nocum, 77 Phil. 1018 (1947); People
v. Sara, 55 Phil. 939 (1931); and People v. Ramirez, 48 Phil. 204 (1925).
225 176 Phil. 20; 86 SCRA 389 (1978).
226 People v. Carmen, supra note 224.
582
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 65/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
227 People v. Regato, supra note 118.
228 Id.
229 Cf. People v. Penesa, supra note 94.
583
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 66/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
230 RTC Decision [Crim. Case No. C-38340(91)], pp. 38-44, supra note 9; Rollo,
pp. 147-153.
231 RTC Decision [Crim. Case No. C-38340(91)], pp. 18-35, supra note 9; Rollo,
pp. 127-144.
232 RTC Decision [Crim. Case No. C-38340(91)], p. 38, supra note 9; Rollo, p.
147; TSN, 16 July 1992 (People v. Dizon, Crim. Case No. C-38340), p. 108.
233 RTC Decision [Crim. Case No. C-38340(91)], p. 38, supra note 9; Rollo, p.
147; TSN, 16 July 1992 (People v. Dizon, Crim. Case No. C-38340), p. 109.
584
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 67/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
234 CA Decision (People v. Dizon), pp. 13-14, supra note 8; Rollo, pp.
74-75.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 68/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
585
_______________
235 Senate TSP No. 47, supra note 3.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 69/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
586
587
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 70/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
588
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 71/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
236 Senate TSP No. 47, supra note 3.
589
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 72/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
590
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 73/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
237 Senate TSP No. 62, supra note 4 at pp. 13-15.
238 Senate TSP No. 47, supra note 3.
239 RTC Decision [Crim. Case No. C-38340(91)], p. 38, supra note 9;
Rollo, p. 147; TSN, 16 July 1992 (People v. Dizon, Crim. Case No. C-
38340), pp. 108-109.
591
_______________
240 Vedaña v. Valencia, 356 Phil. 317, 332; 295 SCRA 1, 18 (1998).
592
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 75/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
241 Caminos v. People, 587 SCRA 348 (2009) citing LUIS B. REYES, THE
REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW—BOOK ONE 995 (15th ed. 2001); People
v. Vistan, 42 Phil. 107 (1921), citing U.S. vs. Gomez, G.R. No. 14068, 17
January 1919 (unreported); U.S. v. Manabat, 28 Phil. 560 (1914).
242 People v. Vistan, supra, citing U.S. vs. Gomez, supra.
243 Id.
244 Id.
245 Gaid v. People, G.R. No. 171636, 7 April 2009, 584 SCRA 489; Gan
v. Court of Appeals, 247-A Phil. 460; 165 SCRA 378 (1988).
246 Gaid v. People, supra; Gan v. Court of Appeals, supra.
247 Gaid v. People, supra; People v. Vistan, supra note 241, citing U.S.
vs. Gomez, supra note 241.
248 Id.
249 Id.
593
_______________
250 See Gaid v. People, supra note 245, at p. 503 (Velasco, J.,
dissenting).
251 Id.
252 RTC Decision [Crim. Case No. C-38340(91)], p. 37, supraRollo, p.
146.
253 Id.
254 Id., at p. 36; Rollo, p. 145.
255 Id.; TSN, 24 June 1992 (People v. Dizon, Crim. Case No. C-38340),
pp. 52-67.
256 RTC Decision [Crim. Case No. C-38340(91)], p. 37, supra note 9;
Rollo, p. 146.
257 Id.; TSN, 24 June 1992 (People v. Dizon, Crim. Case No. C-38340),
pp. 68-69.
258 RTC Decision [Crim. Case No. C-38340(91)], p. 37, supra note 9;
Rollo, p. 146; TSN, 24 June 1992 (People v. Dizon, Crim. Case No. C-
38340), pp. 70-71.
594
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 77/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
259 RTC Decision [Crim. Case No. C-38340(91)], p. 37, supra note 9; Rollo, p. 146.
261 RTC Decision [Crim. Case No. C-38340(91)], pp. 18-21, supraRollo, pp. 127-130.
265 TSN, 21 April 1992 (People v. Dizon, Crim. Case No.C-38340), pp. 175-176.
266 RTC Decision [Crim. Case No. C-38340(91)], p. 61, supra note 9; Rollo, p. 170.
595
_______________
267 TSN, 16 July 1992 (People v. Dizon, Crim. Case No. C-38340), pp.
92-93.
268 TSN, 21 April 1992 (People v. Dizon, Crim. Case No. C-38340), pp.
110-111.
269 Ballou v. Sigma Nu General Fraternity, 291 S.C. 140, 352 S.E.2d
488 (S.C. App. 1986) (U.S.) citing Easler v. Hejaz Temple of Greenville, 285
S.C. 348, 329 S.E.2d 753 (S.C. 1985) (U.S.).
596
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 79/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
270 RTC Decision [Crim. Case No. C-38340(91)], p. 34, supra note 9;
Rollo, p. 143.
271 Id., at p. 27; Rollo, p. 136.
272 Republic Act No. 8049 (1995), Sec. 4(1), otherwise known as the
Anti-Hazing Law.
273 CA Decision (People v. Dizon), p. 22, supraRollo, p. 83.
597
_______________
274 Briñas v. People, 211 Phil. 37; 125 SCRA 687 (1983); see also
People v. Yanson, G.R. No. 179195, 3 October 2011, 658 SCRA 385, citing
People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 189580, 9 February 2011, 642 SCRA 625.
275 People v. Mercado, G.R. No. 189847, 30 May 2011, 649 SCRA 499
[citing People v. Flores, G.R. No. 188315, 25 August 2010, 629 SCRA 478;
People v. Lindo, G.R. No. 189818, 9 August 2010, 627 SCRA 519; People v.
Ogan, G.R. No. 186461, 5 July 2010, 623 SCRA 479; and People v. Cadap,
G.R. No. 190633, 5 July 2010, 623 SCRA 655].
276 Seguritan v. People, G.R. No. 172896, 19 April 2010, 618 SCRA
406.
598
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 81/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
_______________
277 People’s Consolidated Memoranda (Dizon v. People, G.R. No.
155101), p. 144; Rollo, p. 1709.
278 Heirs of Ochoa v. G & S Transport Corporation, G.R. No. 170071, 9
March 2011, 645 SCRA 93 citing Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad, 486 Phil.
574, 592-593; 444 SCRA 355, 370 (2004).
279 Id.
280 Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97412,
17 July 1994, 234 SCRA 78.
599
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 82/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 83/84
2/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161d2c702d1e05fc392003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 84/84