Sunteți pe pagina 1din 4

Hazing Regulation Act (RA No.

8049)

1. Hazing defined; exception. An initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him/her to do menial, silly, foolish and similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him/her to physical or psychological suffering or injury. The physical, mental and psychological testing and training procedure and practices to determine and enhance the physical, mental and psychological fitness of prospective regular members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police as approved by the secretary of National Defense and the National Police Commission duly recommended by the Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Director General of the Philippine National Police shall not be considered as hazing [for purposes of this act].

2. Organization defined. Include any club or the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Philippine National Police, Philippine Military Academy, or cadet corps of the Citizens Military Training, or Citizens Army Training.

3. Who are liable. a. The officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals; b. Other person who actually participated in the hazing; c. The owner of the place where the hazing is conducted shall be liable as an accomplice, when he/she has actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring; d. If the hazing is held in the home of one of the officers of members of the fraternity,

sorority, group, or organization, the parent shall be held liable as principals when they have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring; e. The school authorities including faculty members who consent to the hazing or who have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring shall be punished as accomplices for the acts of hazing committed by the perpetrators; f. The officers, former officers or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually planned the hazing although not present when the acts constituting the hazing were committed shall be liable as principals; g. Officers or members of an organization, group, fraternity or sororitys adviser who is present when the acts constituting the hazing were committed and failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring shall be liable as a principal.

4. Prima facie evidence of participation. The presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as a principal unless he prevented the commission of the acts of hazing.

5. Written notice required before the conduct of hazing. No-hazing or initiation rites in any from or manner by a fraternity, sorority or organization shall be allowed without prior written notice to the school authorities or head of organization seven (7) days before the conduct of such initiations. The written notice shall indicate: a. the period of the initiation activities which shall not exceed three (3) days; b. the names of those to be subjected to such activities; c. an undertaking that no physical violence be employed by anybody during such initiation rites. (Section 2) Note: The head of the school or organization or their representatives must assign at least 2 representatives of the school or organization, as the case may be, to be present

during the initiation to see to it that no physical harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte or applicant. (Section 3)

6. Nature of the violation. Violation of the Hazing Regulation Act is mala in se. Reasons: a. The nomenclatures of the penalties under the Revised Penal Code were adopted and the penalties imposed therein were two degrees higher than those provided in the Code; b. Penal provisions of the law were lifted almost verbatim from Articles 263 to 266 of the Revised Penal Code (physical injuries); c. The persons criminally liable are principals and accomplices; d. Modifying circumstances are made by law to be applicable. Hazing or initiation rites is not entirely prohibited for it may be allowed subject to the compliance with the requirement that a prior written notice to the school authorities or head of organization seven days before the conduct of such initiation. The law shall be violated if the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical injury or dies as a result thereof. 7. Hazing resulting to death; lack of malicious intent to injure; committed through reckless imprudence. In order to be found guilty of any of the felonious acts under Articles 262 to 266 (Mutilation and Physical Injuries) of the Revised Penal Code, the employment of physical injuries must be coupled with dolus malus. As an act that is mala in se, the existence of malicious intent is fundamental, since injury arises from the mental state of the wrongdoer iniuria ex affect facientis consistat. If there is no criminal intent, the accused cannot be found guilty of an intentional felony. Thus, in case of physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code, there must be a specific animus iniuriandi or malicious intention to do wrong against the physical integrity or well-being of a person so as to incapacitate and deprive the victim of certain bodily functions. Without proof beyond reasonable doubt of the required animus iniuriandi, the overt act of inflicting physical injuries per se merely satisfies the elements

of freedom and intelligence in an intentional felony. The commission of the act does not in itself make a man guilty unless his intentions are. The absence of malicious intent does not automatically mean, however, that the accused fraternity members are ultimately devoid of criminal liability. The Revised Penal Code also punishes felonies that are committed by means of fault (culpa). According to Article 3 thereof, there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. Reckless imprudence or negligence consists of a voluntary act done without malice, from which an immediate personal harm, injury or material damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution or advertence on the part of the person committing it. In this case, the danger is visible and consciously appreciated by the actor. There was patent recklessness in the hazing of Lenny Villa. The multiple hematomas or bruises found in Lenny Villas arms and thighs, resulting from repeated blows to those areas, caused the loss of blood from his vital organs and led to his eventual death. These hematomas must be taken in the light of the hazing activities performed on him by the Aquila Fraternity. According to the testimonies of the co-neophytes of Lenny, they were punched, kicked, elbowed, kneed, stamped on; and hit with different objects on their arms, legs, and thighs. They were also paddled at the back of their thighs or legs. There is also evidence to show that some of the accused fraternity members were drinking during the initiation rites. Consequently, the collective acts of the fraternity members were tantamount to recklessness, which made the resulting death of Lenny a culpable felony. It must be remembered that organizations owe to their initiates a duty of care not to cause them injury in the process. With the foregoing facts, we rule that the accused are guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Since the victims death was the cumulative effect of the injuries suffered, criminal responsibility redounds to all those who directly participated in and contributed to the infliction of physical injuries. (Artemio Villareal v. People of the Philippines/People of the Philippines v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al/FidelitonDizon v. People of the Philippines/Gerarda H. Villa v. Manuel Lorenzo Escalona II, et al, G.R. No. 151258/G.R. No. 154954/G.R. No. 155101/G.R. Nos. 178057 and G.R. No. 178080, February 1, 2012)

S-ar putea să vă placă și