By: Pauline Eunice S. Lobigan
Facts of the Case:
• Lenny died during Aquila’s fraternity initiation rite. • The night before the commencement of the rites, they were briefed on what to expect. They were told that there would be physical beatings and psychological torture, that the whole event would last for three days, and that they could quit at any time. • On their first night, they were subjected to “traditional” initiation rites, including the “Indian Run,” “Bicol Express,” “Rounds,” and the “Auxies’ Privilege Round.” The beatings were predominantly directed at the neophytes’ arms and legs. • In the morning of their second day of initiation, they were made to present comic plays and to play rough basketball. They were also required to memorize and recite the Aquila Fraternity’s principles. • Late in the afternoon, they were once again subjected to “traditional initiation rituals. • When the rituals were officially reopened on the insistence of Dizon and Villareal, the neophytes were subjected to another “traditional” ritual – paddling by the fraternity. • During the whole initiation rites, auxiliaries were assigned to the neophytes. The auxiliaries protected the neophytes by functioning as human barriers and shielding them from those who were designated to inflict physical and psychological pain on the initiates. It was their regular duty to stop foul or excessive physical blows; to help the neophytes to “pump” their legs in order that their blood would circulate; to facilitate a rest interval after every physical activity or “round”; to serve food and water; to tell jokes; to coach the initiates; and to give them whatever they needed. • These rituals were performed with Lenny’s consent. • A few days before the “rites,” he asked both his parents for permission to join the Aquilla Fraternity. His father knew that Lenny would go through an initiation process and would be gone for three days.
ISSUES: 1. Whether or not accused Villareal and Dizon are guilty of homicide; and
2. Whether or not Tecson, et al. are guilty of slight physical injuries.
Arguments:
I. ACCUSED VILLAREAL AND DIZON ARE NOT GUILTY OF HOMICIDE.
The existence of animus interficendi or intent to kill not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The presence of an ex ante situation – in this case, fraternity initiation rites – does not automatically amount to the absence of malicious intent or dolus malus. If it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrators were equipped with a guilty mind – whether or not there is a contextual background or factual premise – they are still criminally liable for intentional felony. In the case at bar, the witnesses stated during the cross – examination that Dizon uttered the following remarks while stepping on their thighs he said “Ito, yung pamilya nito ay pinapatay yung kapatid ko ,” “ This guy, his father stole the parking space of my father.” This utterances of the accused were baseless, since these were “just part of the psychological initiation calculated to instill fear on the part of the neophytes”; that “there is no element of truth in it as testified by Bienvinido Marquez”; and that the “harsh words uttered by petitioner and Villareal are part of tradition concurred and accepted by all the fraternity members during their initiation rights. Therefore, there is no basis for concluding the existence of intent to kill based solely thereon. At the outset, the neophytes were briefed that they would be subjected to psychological pressure in order to scare them. They knew that they would be mocked, ridiculed, and intimidated. To our understanding, accused Dizon’s way of inflicting psychological pressure was through hurling make – believe accusations at the initiates. He concocted the fictitious stories, so that he could justify giving the neophytes harder blows, all in the context of fraternity initiation and role playing. Even one of the neophytes admitted that the accusations were untrue and made – up. Thus, without proof beyond reasonable doubt, Dizon’s behavior must not be automatically viewed as evidence of genuine, evil motivation to kill Lenny Villa. Rather, it must be taken within the context of the fraternity’s initiation. It was not even established whether the fathers of Dizon and Villa really had any familiarity with each other as would lend credence to the veracity of Dizon’s threats. The testimony of Lenny’s co – neophyte, Marquez, only confirmed this view. According to Marquez, he knew it was not true and that Dizon was making it up. The cumulative acts of all the accused were not directed towards killing Villa, but merely to inflict physical harm as part of the fraternity initiation rites. Verily, absent of the existence of intent to kill. Animus interficendi cannot and should not be inferred unless there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of such intent.
II. Tecson et al are not Guilty of Slight Physical Injuries.
The existence of animus iniurandi or malicious intent to injure physical injuries not proven beyond reasonable doubt. In order to be found guilty of any of the felonious acts under Articles 262 to 266 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 injuria ex affectu 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 iniurandi 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 iniurandi, 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. Thus, we have ruled in a number of instances that the mere infliction of physical injuries, absent malicious intent, does not make a person automatically liable for an intentional felony. In Bagajo v. Marave, the accused teacher, using a bamboo stick, whipped one of her students behind her legs and thighs as a form of discipline. The student suffered lesions and bruises from the corporal punishment. The Court ruled that she did not do what she had done with criminal intent. The means she actually used was moderate and that she was not motivated by ill – will, hatred, or any malevolent intent. Considering the applicable laws, the Court then ruled that “as a matter of law, petitioner did not incur any criminal liability for her act of whipping her pupil. In People v. Regato, the Court ruled that malicious intent must be judged by the action, conduct, and external acts of the accused. What persons do is the best index of their intention. The Court also ruled that the method employed, the kind of weapon used, and the parts of the body on which the injury was inflicted may be determinative of the intent of the perpetrator. It is worth pointing out that the neophytes willingly and voluntarily consented to undergo physical initiation and hazing. As can be gleaned from the narration of facts, they voluntarily agreed to join the initiation rites to become members of the Aquila Legis Fraternity. Prior to the initiation, they were given briefings on what to expect. It is of common knowledge that before admission in a fraternity, the neophytes will undergo a rite of passage. Thus, they were made aware that traditional methods such as mocking, psychological tests, and physical punishment would take place. They knew that the initiation would involve beating and other forms of hazing. They were also told of their right and opportunity to quit any time they wanted to. In fact, prosecution witness Navera testified that accused Tecson told him that “after a week, you can already play basketball. “Prosecution witness Marquez for his part, admitted that he knew that the initiates would be a hit in the arms and legs, that wooden paddle would be used to hit them and that he expected bruises on his arms and legs. Indeed, there can be no fraternity initiation without consenting neophytes. Even if the specific acts of punching, kicking, paddling and other modes of inflicting physical pain were done voluntarily, freely, and with intelligence, thereby satisfying the elements of freedom and intelligence in the felony of physical injuries, the fundamental ingredient of criminal intent was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary, all that was proven was that the acts were done pursuant to tradition. Other than paddle, no other weapon was used to inflict injuries on Lenny. The targeted parts were predominantly the legs and the arms. The designation of roles, including the roles of auxiliaries, which were assigned for the specific purpose of lending assistance to and taking care of the neophytes during the initiation rites, further belied the presence of malicious intent. All those who wished to join the fraternity went through the same process of traditional initiation; there is no proof that Lenny Villa was specifically targeted or given a different treatment. For the foregoing reasons, as a matter of law, there being no proof beyond reasonable doubt of the existence of malicious intent to inflict physical injuries or animus iniurandi as required in mala in se cases, we pray for the accused’s acquittal.
CONCLUSION
Lenny Villa, had knowingly consented to the conduct of hazing during their initiation rites. The case involves an ex ante situation in which a man – driven by his own desire to join a society of men – pledged to go through physically and psychologically strenuous admission rituals, just so he could enter the fraternity. Even after going through Aquila’s grueling traditional rituals during the first day, Lenny continued his participation and finished the second day of initiation. Based on the foregoing contextual background, and absent further proof showing clear malicious intent, Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code which states that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended cannot be applied. As previously mentioned, the specific acts of punching, kicking, paddling and other modes of inflicting physical and psychological pain were done in the context of fraternity initiation and role playing. Since malicious intent was not proven, there can be no felony. If there is no felony committed then Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable. Hence, absent a law prohibiting hazing, malicious intent to kill or inflict physical injuries as required in mala in se cases, we pray that all the accused be acquitted in both cases of homicide and slight physical injuries.