FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 171222. February 18, 2015.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. LTSG.

DOMINADOR BAYABOS, LTJG. MANNY G. FERRER, LTJG.
RONALD G. MAGSINO, LTJG. GERRY P. DOCTOR, ENS.
DOMINADOR B. OPERIO, JR., and THE HON.
SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents.

[G.R. No. 174786. February 18, 2015.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. RADM VIRGINIO

R. ARIS, LTJG. KRUZALDO G. MABBORANG, ENS. DENNIS S.
VELASCO, and the HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents.

DECISION

SERENO, C.J : p

While this Court has recently faced questions on the criminal liability of
fraternity members for hazing, this case presents novel questions on the
extent of liability of schools and school authorities under Republic Act No.
8049, or the Anti-Hazing Law.
The responsibility given to an academic institution for the welfare of its
students has been characterized by law and judicial doctrine as a form of
special parental authority and responsibility. 1 This responsibility has been
amplified by the enactment of the Anti-Hazing Law, in that the failure by
school authorities to take any action to prevent the offenses as provided by
the law exposes them to criminal liability as accomplices in the criminal acts.
Thus, the institution and its officers cannot stand idly by in the face of
patently criminal acts committed within their sphere of responsibility. They
bear the commensurate duty to ensure that the crimes covered by the Anti-
Hazing Law are not committed.
It was within this legal framework that the school authorities of the
Philippine Merchant Marine Academy (PMMA) were criminally charged before
the Sandiganbayan as accomplices to hazing under the Anti-Hazing Law.
Before they were arraigned, the Sandiganbayan quashed 2 the Information
against them on the basis of the dismissal of the criminal case against the
principal accused and, the failure to include in the Information the material
averments required by the Anti-Hazing Law.
Consequently, this Petition was filed before this Court questioning the
Sandiganbayan's quashal of the Information.
THE CASE BACKGROUND
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 Fernando C. Balidoy, Jr. (Balidoy) was admitted as a probationary
midshipman at the PMMA. 3 In order to reach active status, all new entrants
were required to successfully complete the mandatory "Indoctrination and
Orientation Period," 4 which was set from 2 May to 1 June 2001. 5 Balidoy
died on 3 May 2001. 6 TDEASC

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) probed the death of Balidoy.

After months of investigation, it forwarded its findings 7 to the provincial
prosecutor of Zambales for the preliminary investigation and possible
criminal prosecution of those involved in the orientation and indoctrination of
the PMMA Class of 2005. 8 Subsequently, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
of Zambales issued a Resolution 9 finding probable cause to charge the
following as principals to the crime of hazing: Aldwin Alvarez (Alvarez),
Leotharius C. Montez (Montez), Rudence G. Reyes (Reyes), and Jed Nicholas
S. Simpas (Simpas) — collectively, Alvarez, et al. A criminal case against
Alvarez, et al. was then filed with the Regional Trial Court of Iba, Zambales
(RTC-Zambales).
The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor also endorsed to the Deputy
Ombudsman for the Military the finding of probable cause to charge the
following school authorities as accomplices to hazing: Rear Admiral (RADM)
Virginio R. Aris (Aris), Lieutenant Senior Grade (LTSG.) Dominador D.
Bayabos (Bayabos), Lieutenant Junior Grade (LTJG.) Gerry P. Doctor (Doctor),
LTJG. Manny Ferrer (Ferrer), LTJG. Kruzaldo Mabborang (Mabborang), LTJG.
Ronald G. Magsino (Magsino), Ensign (ENS.) Dennis Velasco (Velasco), and
ENS. Dominador Operio (Operio) — collectively, respondents. The
Ombudsman Investigator agreed with the findings of the Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor. The matter was thus ordered re-docketed for the purpose of
conducting the proper administrative proceedings against respondents for
grave misconduct and abuse of authority. 10 The Office of the Special
Prosecutor eventually filed with the Sandiganbayan a criminal case charging
respondents as accomplices to the crime of hazing. 11
Meanwhile, the RTC-Zambales issued an Order dismissing the
Information against the principal accused, Alvarez, et al. 12 The Order was
later entered in the Book of Entries of Judgment.
Bayabos, Ferrer, Magsino, Doctor, and Operio (collectively, Bayabos, et
al.) filed a Motion to Quash the Information. 13 They argued that the
Information did not contain all the essential elements of the offense. They
also pointed out that there was no allegation that the purported act had
been made a prerequisite for admission to the PMMA, especially considering
that the victim had already been accepted in the academy. Moreover, they
stressed that there was no averment in the Information that the PMMA was a
fraternity, a sorority, or an organization. Also underscored was the absence
in the Information of any assertion that the alleged hazing was not part of
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." Furthermore, they emphasized that
there was no allegation that they were given prior written notice of the
hazing and that they had permitted the activity. SIDTCa

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com

 As a final point, Bayabos, et al. argued that the case against the
principal accused had already been dismissed with finality by the RTC. There
being no more principals with whom they could have cooperated in the
execution of the offense, they asserted that the case against them must be
dismissed.
The Special Prosecutor opposed 14 the motion of Bayabos, et al. He
insisted that the Information alleged the material facts that would
sufficiently establish the presence of the essential ingredients of the crime of
accomplice to hazing. He also stressed that there was nothing in the law
requiring that the principals must be prosecuted first before a case could be
filed against the accomplices. The Comment/Opposition of the Special
Prosecutor was, however, silent on the issue of whether the Information
contained an allegation that the supposed hazing had been made a
prerequisite for admission to the PMMA, and whether the academy was
considered an "organization" within the meaning of the Anti-Hazing Law.
Six days before Bayabos, et al. were set to be arraigned, 15 the
Sandiganbayan issued the assailed Resolution (SB Resolution I) quashing the
Information and dismissing the criminal case against them. According to the
court, the fact that the charge against the principal accused Alvarez, et al.
was dismissed with finality favorably carried with it the indictment against
those charged as accomplices, whose criminal responsibility was
subordinate to that of the former. It stressed that before there can be an
accomplice, there must be a principal by direct participation, the latter being
the originator of the criminal design. In this case, as there were no principal
perpetrators to speak of, necessarily, there was no one else with whom they
could have cooperated in the execution of the crime of hazing. In view of the
dismissal of the case against the principals, the court ruled that the
Information charging Bayabos, et al. as accomplices could no longer stand
on its own.
In any event, the Sandiganbayan found that the Information charged
no offense, and that the allegations therein were mere conclusions of law. It
also stressed that there was no averment that the alleged hazing was not
part of 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 (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP), pursuant to
Section 1 of the law. 16 It must be noted, though, that the Sandiganbayan
did not make any categorical determination that the PMMA was considered
an "organization" within the meaning of the Anti-Hazing Law.
Six months after the Sandiganbayan issued its Resolution dismissing
the criminal case against Bayabos, et al., the accused Velasco surrendered
and then filed his own Motion to Quash, 17 adopting the grounds raised by
that court. His arraignment was set on 14 August 2006. 18 However, on 3
August 2006, the Sandiganbayan issued another Resolution (SB Resolution
II) dismissing the case against him. According to the court, since Velasco was
similarly situated as Bayabos, et al., the Information against him must
likewise be quashed in light of the reasoning laid out in SB Resolution I. In
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 the same Resolution, the Sandiganbayan ex proprio motu dismissed the case
against Aris and Mabborang (collectively, Velasco et al. ), explaining that
they, too, had been charged under the same Information for the same
offense. 19 It is unclear from the records 20 whether the accused Aris and
Mabborang surrendered or were arrested, or whether the Order of Arrest 21
was recalled prior to the dismissal of the case.
Aggrieved, the Office of the Ombudsman, through the Special
Prosecutor, filed with this Court on 13 March 2006 a Petition assailing SB
Resolution I and, on 16 October 2006, another Petition challenging SB
Resolution II.
THE ISSUES
The Special Prosecutor asks this Court to address a number of legal
issues. After a thorough evaluation of the Petitions, however, we cull the
threshold issues needing to be addressed by this Court as follows:
I. Whether the prosecution of respondents for the crime of
accomplice to hazing can proceed in spite of the dismissal
with finality of the case against the principal accused

II. Whether the Information filed against respondents contains all

the material averments for the prosecution of the crime of
accomplice to hazing under the Anti-Hazing Law
OUR RULING
With regard to the first issue, we agree with petitioner that the
Sandiganbayan erred when it dismissed outright the case against
respondents, on the sole ground that the case against the purported
principals had already been dismissed. It is a settled rule that the case
against those charged as accomplices is not ipso facto dismissed in the
absence of trial of the purported principals; the dismissal of the case against
the latter; or even the latter's acquittal, especially when the occurrence of
the crime has in fact been established. 22 In People v. Rafael, 23 the Supreme
Court En Banc reasoned thus: "The corresponding responsibilities of the
principal, accomplice, and accessory are distinct from each other. As long as
the commission of the offense can be duly established in evidence, the
determination of the liability of the accomplice or accessory can proceed
independently of that of the principal." Accordingly, so long as the
commission of the crime can be duly proven, the trial of those charged as
accomplices to determine their criminal liability can proceed independently
of that of the alleged principal. 24 TAaEIc

We note in the present case that Bayabos, et al. merely presented the
Order of Entry of Judgment 25 dismissing the case against Alvarez, et al.
Nowhere is it mentioned in the order that the case was dismissed against
the alleged principals, because no crime had been committed. In fact, it does
not cite the trial court's reason for dismissing the case. Hence, the
Sandiganbayan committed an error when it simply relied on the Order of
Entry of Judgment without so much as scrutinizing the reason for the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 dismissal of the case against the purported principals.
Nonetheless, as will be discussed below, we affirm the quashal of the
Information against respondents.
Section 14, Article III of the Constitution, recognizes the right of the
accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
them. As a manifestation of this constitutional right, the Rules of Court
requires that the information charging persons with an offense be
"sufficient." One of the key components of a "sufficient information" is the
statement of the acts or omissions constituting the offense charged, subject
of the complaint. 26 The information must also be crafted in a language
ordinary and concise enough to enable persons of common understanding to
know the offense being charged against them. 27 This approach is intended
to allow them to suitably prepare for their defense, as they are presumed to
have no independent knowledge of the facts constituting the offense they
have purportedly committed. 28 The information need not be in the same
kind of language used in the law relied upon. 29
At any time before entering a plea, an accused may assail the
information filed with the court based on the grounds enumerated in Section
3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, one of which is the claim that the facts
charged do not constitute an offense. In assessing whether an information
must be quashed on that ground, the basic test 30 is to determine if the facts
averred would establish the presence of the essential elements of the crime
as defined in the law. The information is examined without consideration of
the truth or veracity of the claims therein, as these are more properly
proven or controverted during the trial. In the appraisal of the information,
matters aliunde are not taken into account.
We quote the pertinent provision of the Anti-Hazing Law as follows:
Section 1. Hazing, as used in this Act, is 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.
The term "organization" shall include any club or the Armed
Forces of the Philippines, Philippine National Police, Philippine
Military Academy, or officer and cadet corp of the Citizen's
Military Training and Citizen's Army Training . 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 the purposes of this Act.
Sec. 4. . . . . .
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 T h e 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. (Emphasis supplied)
acHETI

The crime of hazing is thus committed when the following essential

elements are established: (1) a person is placed in some embarrassing or
humiliating situation or subjected to physical or psychological suffering or
injury; and (2) these acts were employed as a prerequisite for the person's
admission or entry into an organization. In the crime of hazing, the crucial
ingredient distinguishing it from the crimes against persons defined under
Title Eight of the Revised Penal Code is the infliction by a person of physical
or psychological suffering on another in furtherance of the latter's admission
or entry into an organization.
In the case of school authorities and faculty members who have had no
direct participation in the act, they may nonetheless be charged as
accomplices if it is shown that (1) hazing, as established by the above
elements, occurred; (2) the accused are school authorities or faculty
members; and (3) they consented to or failed to take preventive action
against hazing in spite actual knowledge thereof.
First, we reject the contention of respondents that PMMA should not be
considered an organization. Under the Anti-Hazing Law, the breadth of the
t e r m organization includes — but is not limited to — groups, teams,
fraternities, sororities, citizen army training corps, educational institutions,
clubs, societies, cooperatives, companies, partnerships, corporations, the
PNP, and the AFP. 31 Attached to the Department of Transportation and
Communications, 32 the PMMA is a government-owned educational
institution 33 established for the primary purpose of producing efficient and
well-trained merchant marine officers. 34 Clearly, it is included in the term
organization within the meaning of the law.
We also disagree with the Sandiganbayan ruling that the quashal of the
Information was warranted for failure to allege that the purported acts were
not covered by the exemption relating to the duly recommended and
approved "testing and training procedure and practices" for prospective
regular members of the AFP and the PNP. This exemption is an affirmative
defense in, not an essential element of, the crime of accomplice to hazing. It
is an assertion that must be properly claimed by the accused, not by the
prosecution. The reason for this rule is that the accused carry the burden of
proof in establishing by clear and convincing evidence that they have
satisfied the requirements thereof. 35 Thus, the prosecution's failure to point
out in the Information that the exception is inapplicable would not justify the
quashal of that Information.
Nevertheless, we find — albeit for a different reason — that the Motion
to Quash must be granted, as the Information does not include all the
material facts constituting the crime of accomplice to hazing. The
Information charging respondents reads as follows:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 The undersigned Assistant Special Prosecutor, Office of the
Special Prosecutor, hereby accuses [RADM] VIRGINIO R. ARIS, [LTSG.]
DOMINADOR D. BAYABOS, [LTJG.] MANNY G. FERRER, [LTJG.] RONALD
G. MAGSINO, [LTJG.] KRUZALDO G. MABBORANG, [LTJG.] GERRY P.
DOCTOR, [ENS.] DOMINADOR B. OPERIO, JR., and [ENS.] DENNIS S.
VELASCO, as accomplices for Violation of R.A. 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law),
committed as follows:
That during the period from the 2nd of May 2001 up to the 3rd of
May 2001, inside the campus of the Philippine Merchant Marine
Academy (PMMA), in the Municipality of San Narciso, Province of
Zambales, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court accused RADM VIRGINIO R. ARIS, President of PMMA with [Salary
Grade (SG) 29]; LTSG. DOMINADOR D. BAYABOS, Commandant of the
Cadets; (LTJG.) MANNY G. FERRER, 1st Batallion Officer; LTJG. RONALD
G. MAGSINO, Security Officer; LTJG. KRUZALDO G. MABBORANG, 2nd
Battalion Officer; LTJG. GERRY P. DOCTOR, Batl. Mast.; ENS.
DOMINADOR B. OPERIO, JR., 1st Battalion Company Officer; and ENS.
DENNIS S. VELASCO, Mess Officer, all public officers, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, committing the
offense in relation to office and while in the performance of their duties
as such public officers being the school authorities and/or faculty
members did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally,
consent or have actual knowledge of the hazing perpetrated by the
principal accused, all First Class Midshipmen, against probationary
midshipman FERNANDO BALIDOY, JR. during the school's Indoctrination
and Orientation; and, fail to take any action to prevent the occurrence
of the hazing and the infliction of psychological and physical injuries
against said FERNANDO BALIDOY, JR. thereby causing the
instantaneous death of the latter, to the damage and prejudice of the
heirs of said FERNANDO BALIDOY, JR. 36 cCAIDS

As can be gleaned from the above, the indictment merely states that
psychological pain and physical injuries were inflicted on the victim. There is
no allegation that the purported acts were employed as a prerequisite for
admission or entry into the organization. Failure to aver this crucial
ingredient would prevent the successful prosecution of the criminal
responsibility of the accused, either as principal or as accomplice, for the
crime of hazing. Plain reference to a technical term 37 — in this case, hazing
— is insufficient and incomplete, as it is but a characterization of the acts
allegedly committed and thus a mere conclusion of law. Section 6, Rule 110
of the Rules of Court, expressly states that the information must include,
inter alia, both "the designation of the offense given by the statute" and "the
acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense." The Special
Prosecutor's belated argument 38 in his Petition before this Court that the
successful completion of the indoctrination and orientation program was
used as a prerequisite for continued admission to the academy — i.e.,
attainment of active midshipman status — does not cure this defect in the
Information. Thus, the Information must be quashed, as the ultimate facts it
presents do not constitute the crime of accomplice to hazing.
Finally, we reject the Special Prosecutor's claim that the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 Sandiganbayan should just have ordered the filing of another information or
the correction of the defect by amendment, instead of dismissing the case
outright. 39 Indeed, Section 4, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, provides that if
a motion to quash is based on the ground that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense, the court shall give the prosecution a chance to
correct the defect by amendment. However, the provision also states that if
the prosecution fails to make the amendment, the motion shall be granted.
Here, we point out that the Special Prosecutor insisted in his Comment on
the Motion to Quash 40 that there was no defect in the Information. Neither
has he filed a new information after the motion was sustained, pursuant to
Section 5, Rule 117. Thus, the Sandiganbayan was correct in ordering the
quashal of the Information and the eventual dismissal of the case.
This does not mean, however, that the Special Prosecutor is now
precluded from filing another information. Section 6, Rule 117, specifically
states that an order sustaining a motion to quash would not bar another
prosecution. That is, of course, unless respondents are able to prove that the
criminal action or liability has been extinguished, or that double jeopardy
has already attached.
Given the foregoing, the Court no longer sees the necessity to pass
upon the other issues raised by petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 171222
is hereby DENIED and the petition for certiorari in G.R. No. 174786,
DISMISSED. The dismissal of the case in Sandiganbayan Resolutions dated
27 January 2006 and 3 August 2006 in Criminal Case No. 28339 are thus
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, Perez and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. See generally CIVIL CODE, Arts. 352, 2180 and FAMILY CODE, Arts. 218-221, 223
in relation to R.A. 8049 (ANTI-HAZING LAW), Secs. 3-4; St. Joseph's College v.
Miranda, G.R. No. 182353, 29 June 2010, 622 SCRA 253; Amadora v. Court of
Appeals, 243 Phil. 268 (1988); Palisoc v. Brillantes, 148-B Phil. 1029 (1971).
2. People v. Aris, Criminal Case No. 28339 (Sandiganbayan, 27 January 2006), slip
op., rollo (G.R. No. 171222), pp. 13-22 (hereinafter SB Resolution I); People v.
Aris, Criminal Case No. 28339 (Sandiganbayan, 3 August 2006), slip op., rollo
(G.R. No. 174786), p. 57 (hereinafter SB Resolution II). Both Resolutions were
penned by Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Godofredo L. Legaspi and
concurred in by Associate Justices Efren N. de la Cruz and Norberto Y.
Geraldez.
3. Petition of the Special Prosecutor (filed on 13 March 2006), p. 15, rollo (G.R. No.
171222), p. 46; Comment of Bayabos, et al. (filed on 30 June 2006), p. 8, rollo
(G.R. No. 171222), p. 103; Motion to Quash of Velasco (People v. Aris,
Criminal Case No. 28339, Sandiganbayan, decided on 3 August 2006), p. 4,
Sandiganbayan rollo, p. 261.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 4. Urgent Motion for the Determination of Probable Cause and for the Deferment of
Action for the Issuance of Warrants of Arrests filed by Bayabos, et al. (filed on
22 September 2005), p. 6, Sandiganbayan rollo, p. 68 (hereinafter Motion for
the Determination of Probable Cause of Bayabos, et al.).
5. Directive issued by PMMA's Department of Midshipmen's Affairs entitled
"Indoctrination and Orientation Period," Annex E of the Motion for the
Determination of Probable Cause of Bayabos, et al., Sandiganbayan rollo, pp.
93-94 (hereinafter Indoctrination and Orientation Directive); See Certification
of Bayabos, et al., Alvarez, et al., and Velasco entitled "Chronology of Events
Leading to the Death of P/Midn. Balidoy, Fernando, Jr. C." Annex H of the
Motion for the Determination of Probable Cause of Bayabos, et al.,
Sandiganbayan rollo, p. 101 (hereinafter Certification on the Chronology of
Events).
6. Petition of the Special Prosecutor, p. 15, rollo (G.R. No. 171222), p. 46; Motion
for the Determination of Probable Cause of Bayabos, et al., pp. 6-7,
Sandiganbayan rollo, pp. 68-69; Certification on the Chronology of Events,
supra.
7. Findings of the Special Action Unit (dated 22 January 2002), Sandiganbayan
rollo, pp. 27-29.
8. Petition of the Special Prosecutor, pp. 8-10, rollo (G.R. No. 171222), pp. 39-41.
9. Resolution of Asst. Provincial Prosecutor (dated 5 July 2002), Sandiganbayan
rollo, pp. 10-14.
10. Review and Recommendation (dated 27 February 2003), Sandiganbayan rollo,
pp. 5-9.
11. Petition of the Special Prosecutor, pp. 10-14, rollo (G.R. No. 171222), pp. 41-45.
12. See People v. Alvarez, Crim. Case No. RTC-3502-I (Iba, Zambales RTC Br. 71,
21 June 2005) (Entry of Judgment), Sandiganbayan rollo, p. 133.
13. Motion to Quash of Bayabos, et al., (People v. Aris, Criminal Case No. 28339,
SB, decided on 27 January 2006), Sandiganbayan rollo, pp. 113-123.
14. Comment/Opposition of the Special Prosecutor, (People v. Aris, Criminal Case
No. 28339, SB, decided on 27 January 2006), Sandiganbayan rollo, pp. 186-
196 (hereinafter, Opposition to the Motion to Quash).
15. Order of Arraignment of Bayabos, et al. (People v. Aris, Criminal Case No.
28339, 7 December 2005), slip op., Sandiganbayan rollo, pp. 211-213. See
Motion to Defer Arraignment (People v. Aris, Criminal Case No. 28339, filed
on 24 January 2006), Sandiganbayan rollo, pp. 213-214.
16. Sandiganbayan Resolution I, supra note 2, at 8, rollo (G.R. No. 171222), p. 84.
17. Motion to Quash of Velasco, supra note 3, Sandiganbayan rollo, pp. 258-265.
18. Order of Arraignment of Velasco (People v. Aris, Criminal Case No. 28339, 21
July 2006), slip op., Sandiganbayan rollo, pp. 254-255.
19. SB Resolution II, supra note 2, rollo (G.R. No. 174786), p. 57.
20. See SB Resolution II, id.; Order of Arraignment of Velasco, supra note 18, at
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 254.
21. Order of Arrest (People v. Aris, Criminal Case No. 28339, 30 September 2005),
slip op., Sandiganbayan rollo, pp. 109-110.
22. People v. Rafael , 397 Phil. 109 (2000); Vino v. People, 258-A Phil. 404 (1989).
Cf.: U.S. v. Mendoza, 23 Phil. 194 (1912) (cited in Vino v. People, in which the
acquittal of the principal resulted in the acquittal of the accessory, as it was
shown that no crime had been committed, as the fire was the result of an
accident; hence, there was no basis for the conviction of the accessory.)
23. People v. Rafael, supra , at 123 (quoting Vino v. People, supra).
24. People v. Rafael, supra ; Vino v. People, supra.
25. Annex B of the Motion to Quash of Bayabos, et al., supra note 12,
Sandiganbayan rollo, p. 133.
26. RULES OF COURT, RULE 110, SECS. 6 & 8.

27. RULES OF COURT, RULE 110, SEC. 9; Lazarte v. Sandiganbayan , 600 Phil. 475
(2009).

28. Lazarte v. Sandiganbayan, supra ; People v. Cinco, G.R. No. 186460, 4

December 2009, 607 SCRA 820 (citing Balitaan v. Court of First Instance, 201
Phil. 311 [1982]); Andaya v. People, 526 Phil. 480 (2006) (citing U.S. v.
Karelsen, 3 Phil. 223 [1904]).
29. Id.
30. Torres v. Garchitorena , 442 Phil. 765 (2002); Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, 379
Phil. 708 (2000); Ingco v. Sandiganbayan , 338 Phil. 1067 (1997).
31. Anti-Hazing Law, Secs. 1, 4.
32. E.O. 292 — Administrative Code of 1987, Title XV, Chap. 6, Sec. 23.
33. Olanda v. Bugayong , 459 Phil. 626 (2003); Philippine Merchant Marine
Academy v. Court of Appeals, 161 Phil. 634 (1976).
34. R.A. 3680 — An Act Converting the Philippine Nautical School into the PMMA,
Sec. 2.
35. See Sierra v. People, 609 Phil. 446 (2009); People v. Castillo , 533 Phil. 197
(2007); People v. Rapisora , G.R. No. 147855, 28 May 2004, 430 SCRA 237;
People v. Marcelo , 471 Phil. 301 (2004).
36. Information (dated 2 September 2005), Sandiganbayan rollo, pp. 1-4. It is also
quoted in Sandiganbayan Resolution, pp. 4-5, rollo (G.R. No. 171222), pp. 16-
17.

37. See generally U.S. v. Lim San, 17 Phil. 273 (1910) (cited in Consigna v. People ,
G.R. Nos. 175750-51, 2 April 2014; People v. Valdez , G.R. No. 175602, 18
January 2012, 663 SCRA 272; Matrido v. People , 613 Phil. 203 (2009);
Batulanon v. People, 533 Phil. 336 (2006); Andaya v. People, supra note 28;
Burgos v. Sandiganbayan, 459 Phil. 794 (2003); People v. Banihit, 393 Phil.
465 (2000); Oca v. Jimenez, 115 Phil. 420 (1962).
38. Petition of the Special Prosecutor, pp. 15-16, rollo (G.R. No. 171222), pp. 46-47.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 39. Petition of the Special Prosecutor, p. 28, rollo (G.R. No. 171222), p. 59.
40. Opposition to the Motion to Quash, supra note 14 at 4-9, Sandiganbayan rollo,
pp. 189-194.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com