01 People v. Bayabos MALLARI

CRIMPRO RULE 117 (Sections 3 – 6)
Title G.R. No. 171222; 174786

PEOPLE v. LTSG BAYABOS Date: February 18, 2015
Ponente: SERENO,C J.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, 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. (First case) RADM
VIRGINIO R. ARIS, LTJG. KRUZALDO G. MABBORANG, ENS. DENNIS S.
VELASCO, AND THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, (second)
Nature of the case: 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. Consequently, this Petition was filed before this Court questioning the
Sandiganbayan’s quashal of the Information.
FACTS
Fernando C. Balidoy, Jr. (Balidoy) was admitted as a probationary midshipman at the PMMA. In order to reach active status, all
new entrants were required to successfully complete the mandatory “Indoctrination and Orientation Period,” which was set
from 2 May to 1 June 2001. Balidoy died on 3 May 2001.
The NBI probed the death of Balidoy and forwarded its findings to the PROV PROSEC of Zambales for the preliminary
investigation of those involved in the orientation and indoctrination of the PMMA Class of 2005. Subsequently, the Assist
PROV PROSEC issued a Resolution finding probable cause to charge the following as principals to the crime of hazing:
Collectively, Alvarez et al. A criminal case was then filed RTC–Zambales.
The Assist PROV PROSEC also endorsed to the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military the finding of probable cause to charge the
following school authorities as accomplices to hazing: (all the respondent in the 2 cases therein) – collectively, respondents.
The Ombudsman Investigator agreed with the findings.The Office of the Special Prosecutor eventually filed with the
Sandiganbayan a criminal case charging respondents as accomplices to the crime of hazing.Meanwhile, the RTC–Zambales
issued an Order dismissing the Information against the principal accused, Alvarez et al.
Bayabos et al. filed a Motion to Quash the Information. They argued that the Information did not contain all the essential
elements of the offense. 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.
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.
Six days before Bayabos et al. were set to be arraigned, the Sandiganbayan issued the assailed Resolution 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 any
event, the Sandiganbayan found that the Information charged no offense, and that the allegations therein were mere
conclusions of law. Hence, this petition by the Ombudsman, through Special Prosecutor assailing the SB’s resolutions.
ISSUE/S
1. WON 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.  NOPE!
2. WON 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 --> HINDI PA RIN.
RATIO
1st: NO. 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. 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 dismissal of the case against the purported principals.
2nd:, Nonetheless, the SC affirmed the quashal of the Information based on grounds different from those raised by the Special
PROSEC. 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.
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.
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 the RPC 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.
SC disagrees 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.
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. 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.
Finally, we reject the Special Prosecutor’s 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 Quash 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.
RULING
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 are thus AFFIRMED.
NOTES
2S 2016-17 (MALLARI)

01 People v. Bayabos MALLARI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

01 People v. Bayabos MALLARI

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

01 People v. Bayabos MALLARI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMPRO RULE 117 (Sections 3 – 6)

Title G.R. No. 171222; 174786

You might also like