Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Dungo v. People G.R. No. 209464

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    Dungo v People (2015) The Supreme Court ruled that Dandy Dungo and Gregorio Sibal Jr. were guilty of violating the Anti-Hazing Law for their involvement in a hazing incident of a fraternity neophyte. [1] Marlon Villanueva was subjected to physical harm during an initiation rite. [2] Dungo and Sibal failed to provide adequate help to Villanueva after the ritual. [3] The Court affirmed that the elements of hazing under the law were met and that Dungo and Sibal could be considered principals in the crime.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dungo v. People G.R. No. 209464

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    1K views2 pages
    Dungo v People (2015) The Supreme Court ruled that Dandy Dungo and Gregorio Sibal Jr. were guilty of violating the Anti-Hazing Law for their involvement in a hazing incident of a fraternity neophyte. [1] Marlon Villanueva was subjected to physical harm during an initiation rite. [2] Dungo and Sibal failed to provide adequate help to Villanueva after the ritual. [3] The Court affirmed that the elements of hazing under the law were met and that Dungo and Sibal could be considered principals in the crime.

    Original Title

    Dungo v. People G.R. No. 209464

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Dungo v People (2015) The Supreme Court ruled that Dandy Dungo and Gregorio Sibal Jr. were guilty of violating the Anti-Hazing Law for their involvement in a hazing incident of a fraternity neophyte. [1] Marlon Villanueva was subjected to physical harm during an initiation rite. [2] Dungo and Sibal failed to provide adequate help to Villanueva after the ritual. [3] The Court affirmed that the elements of hazing under the law were met and that Dungo and Sibal could be considered principals in the crime.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Dungo v. People G.R. No. 209464

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    Dungo v People (2015) The Supreme Court ruled that Dandy Dungo and Gregorio Sibal Jr. were guilty of violating the Anti-Hazing Law for their involvement in a hazing incident of a fraternity neophyte. [1] Marlon Villanueva was subjected to physical harm during an initiation rite. [2] Dungo and Sibal failed to provide adequate help to Villanueva after the ritual. [3] The Court affirmed that the elements of hazing under the law were met and that Dungo and Sibal could be considered principals in the crime.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Dungo v People (2015)

    DANDY DUNGO and GREGORIO SIBAL, JR. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
    G.R. No. 209464 July 1, 2015

    Facts:

    On January 14, 2006, at Villa Novaliches, Brgy. Pansol, Calamba City, Laguna, the Alpha Phi
    Omega Fraternity in conspiracy with more or less twenty other members and officers conducted
    initiation rite. MARLON VILLANUEVA y MEJILLA, a neophyte was subjected to physical
    harm.
    After the initiation rites, accused Sibal inquired about Villanueva's condition but he was ignored
    by Castillo. He then called co-accused Dungo for help. After Dungo arrived at the resort, they
    hailed a tricycle and brought Villanueva to JP Rizal Hospital. There, he gave a false name to the
    security guard as he heard that Dungo had done the same.

    RTC found Dungo and Sibal guilty of the crime of violating Section 4 of the Anti-Hazing Law
    and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

    The CA ruled that the appeal of Dungo and Sibal was bereft of merit.

    Issue:

    Whether or not herein accused were guilty of violation of R.A. No. 8049.

    Ruling:
    Yes, they are guilty of violation of R.A. No. 8049.

    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.

    Classes of direct participants are: the first class of principals would be the actual participants in
    the hazing. If the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical
    injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or
    organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as
    principals. The second class of principals would be the officers, former officers, or alumni of the
    organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually planned the hazing. The third class of
    principals would be the officers or members of an organization group, fraternity or sorority who
    knowingly cooperated in carrying out the hazing by inducing the victim to be present thereat due
    to their indispensable cooperation in the crime by inducing the victim to attend the hazing. The
    next class of principals would be the fraternity or sorority's adviser. The last class of principals
    would be the parents of the officers or members of the fraternity, group, or organization.

    Exceptionally, under R.A. No. 8049, the participation of the offenders in the criminal conspiracy
    can be proven by the prima facie evidence due to their presence during the hazing, unless they
    prevented the commission of the acts therein. 

    You might also like