G.R. Nos. 171222 & 174786 People v.

Bayabos January 15, 2004

People of the Philippines, Ltsg. Dominador Bayabos, Ltjg. Manny G. Ferrer,

DOCTRINE:
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.

FACTS:
For the death of Fernando Balidoy due to hazing on May 3, 2001, several midshipmen of the Philippine
Merchant Marine Academy were charged as principals by the NBI before the Provincial Prosecutor of
Zambales, and the corresponding criminal case filed against them at the RTC of Iba, Zambales. The
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor also endorsed to the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military the finding of
probable cause against the school authorities, herein respondents, as accomplices. The Ombudsan
Investigator sided with the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor and the case was re-docketed as a regular
administrative case for grave misconduct. The Office of the Special Prosecutor also charged respondents
with a criminal case as accomplices to the hazing before the Sandiganbayan.
Meanwhile, the RTC case filed against the principal accused, the midshipmen, was dismissed and became
final and executory.
The respondents herein, accused in the Sandiganbayan, filed a Motion to Quash Information, alleging that
the Information did not contain the essential elements of the offence. There was no allegation that the
purported act had been made a prerequisite for admission to the academy; there was also no averment that
the PMMA was a fraternity, sorority or organisation; there was also 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,
and that they were given prior notice of the activity and they had permitted the activity. They added that
the dismissal of the case against the accused principals, the case against them must also be dismissed, in the
absence of principals with whom they could have cooperated in the execution of the offense. The Special
Prosecutor objected to the motion, averring that there was nothing in the law requiring that principals must
first be prosecuted before a case could be filed against accomplices. It was silent, however, on whether the
PMMA was an organisation or the absence of allegation that hazing was a prerequisite for admission to
the Academy.
The Sandiganbayan ordered the quashal of the Information. It ruled that the Information charged no
offence and the allegations therein were mere conclusions of law. It also noted that since the case against
the principals were already dismissed, the case against the respondents, being mere accomplices should also
be dismissed, since their liability was subordinate to that of the principals. Before there can be an
accomplice, there must be a principal by direct participation. The Sandiganbayan order however, was silent
on the matter of whether the PMMA was an organisation.
Aggrieved, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed the instant petition for review on certiorari.
 G.R. Nos. 171222 & 174786 People v. Bayabos January 15, 2004

ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not 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.
(2) Whether or not 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.

HELD:
(1) YES.
o 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 latters acquittal, especially when the occurrence of the crime has in fact been established.
In People v. Rafael, 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.
o We note in the present case that Bayabos et al. merely presented the Order of Entry of Judgment
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 courts 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
dismissal of the case against the purported principals.
o Nonetheless, as will be discussed below, we affirm the quashal of the Information against respondents.
o 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. 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. 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. The information need not be in the same kind of language used in the law
relied upon.
o 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 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.
o 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.
 G.R. Nos. 171222 & 174786 People v. Bayabos January 15, 2004

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 Citizens Military
Training and Citizens 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. x x x x.
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. (Emphasis supplied)
o 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 persons 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 latters admission or entry into
an organization.
o 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.
o First, we reject the contention of respondents that PMMA should not be considered an organization.
Under the Anti-Hazing Law, the breadth of the term 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. Attached to
the Department of Transportation and Communications, the PMMA is a government-owned
educational institution established for the primary purpose of producing efficient and well-trained
merchant marine officers. Clearly, it is included in the term organization within the meaning of the
law.
o 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. Thus,
the prosecutions failure to point out in the Information that the exception is inapplicable would not
justify the quashal of that Information.
(2) NO.
o 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:
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
G.R. Nos. 171222 & 174786 People v. Bayabos January 15, 2004

(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 schools 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.
o 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 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 Prosecutors belated argument17 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 Prosecutors claim that the Sandiganbayan should just have ordered the filing
of another information or the correction of the defect by amendment, instead of dismissing the case
outright. 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 Quash19 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.