DANDY L. DUNGO and GREGORIO A. SIBAL, JR., Vs People
DANDY L. DUNGO and GREGORIO A. SIBAL, JR., Vs People
ISSUE
WON the petitioner were guilty of RA8049?
Held
Yes. Section 1 of R.A. No. 8049 defines hazing as 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 to do menial, silly, foolish and
other similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury.
From the said definition, the elements of the crime of hazing can be determined: 1. That there is an initiation
rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization; 2.
That there must be a recruit, neophyte or applicant of the fraternity, sorority or organization; and 3. That the
recruit, neophyte or applicant is placed in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to
do menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or
psychological suffering or injury. From the said definition of hazing, it is apparent that there must be an
initiation rite or practice performed by the fraternities, sororities or organization.
Aside from inducing Villanueva to attend the initiation rites and their presence during the hazing, the
petitioners’ guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the sequence of circumstantial evidence
presented by the prosecution. Their involvement in the hazing of Villanueva is not merely based on prima
facie evidence but was also established by circumstantial evidence.
The rules on evidence and precedents to sustain the conviction of an accused through circumstantial
evidence require the existence of the following requisites: (1) there are more than one circumstance; (2) the
inference must be based on proven facts; and (3) the combination of all circumstances produces a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. To justify a conviction upon circumstantial
evidence, the combination of circumstances must be such as to leave no reasonable doubt in the mind as to
the criminal liability of the accused. Jurisprudence requires that the circumstances must be established to
form an unbroken chain of events leading to one fair reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the
exclusion of all others, as the author of the crime.
The Court agrees with the CA and the RTC that the circumstantial evidence presented by the
prosecution was overwhelming enough to establish the guilt of the petitioners beyond a reasonable doubt.
The unbroken chain of events laid down by the CA leaves us no other conclusion other than the petitioners'
participation in the hazing. They took part in the hazing and, together with their fellow fraternity officers and
members, inflicted physical injuries to Villanueva as a requirement of his initiation to the fraternity. The
physical injuries eventually took a toll on the body of the victim, which led to his death. Another young life
lost.