7/25/2019 Hazing Case

1/3

PEOPLE versus LTSG. DOMINADOR BAYABOS, G.R. No. 171222, February 1,2!1",

SERENO,#$%

DO#TRINE%

Section 14, Article III of the Constitution, recognizes the right of the accused to beinformed 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.! "ne of the #e$ components of a sufficient information! is the statement

of the acts or omissions constituting the offense charged, sub%ect of the complaint. &he

information must also be crafted in a language ordinar$ and concise enough to enable persons of

common understanding to #now the offense being charged against them. &his approach is

intended to allow them to suitabl$ prepare for their defense, as the$ are presumed to ha'e no

independent #nowledge of the facts constituting the offense the$ ha'e purportedl$ committed.

&he information need not be in the same #ind of language used in the law relied upon.

In assessing whether an information must be quashed on that ground, the basic test is to

determine if the facts a'erred would establish the presence of the essential elements of the crime

as defined in the law. &he information is e(amined without consideration of the truth or 'eracit$

of the claims therein, as these are more properl$ pro'en or contro'erted during the trial. In the

appraisal of the information, matters aliundeare not ta#en into account.

FA#TS%)ernando C. *alido$, +r. *alido$- was admitted as a probationar$ midshipman at the

//A. In order to reach acti'e status, all new entrants were required to successfull$ complete

the mandator$ Indoctrination and "rientation eriod,! which was set from 0 /a$ to 1 +une

01. *alido$ died on 2 /a$ 01. )inding probable cause, criminal case against Al'arez et

al.was then filed with the Regional &rial Court of Iba, 3ambales as principals to the frime of

hazing. &he Assistant ro'incial rosecutor also endorsed to the eput$ "mbudsman for the

/ilitar$ the finding of probable cause to charge the following school authorities as accomplices

to hazing5 Rear Admiral RA/- 6irginio R. Aris Aris-, 7ieutenant Senior 8rade 7&S8.-

ominador . *a$abos *a$abos- among on of them. &he "ffice of the Special rosecutor

e'entuall$ filed with the Sandiganba$an a criminal case charging respondents as accomplices to

the crime of hazing.

/eanwhile, the R&C93ambales issued an "rder dismissing the Information against

theprincipalaccused, Al'arez et al.*a$abos, )errer, /agsino, octor, and "perio collecti'el$,

*a$abos et al.- filed a /otion to :uash the Information. &he$ argued that the Information did

not contain all the essential elements of the offense. &he$ also pointed out that there was no

allegation that the purported act had been made a prerequisite for admission to the //A,

especiall$ considering that the 'ictim had alread$ been accepted in the academ$. /oreo'er, the$

stressed that there was no a'erment in the Information that the //A was a fraternit$, a

7/25/2019 Hazing Case

2/3

sororit$, or an organization. Also underscored was the absence in the Information of an$

assertion that the alleged hazing was not part of the ph$sical, mental, and ps$chological testing

and training procedure and practices to determine and enhance the ph$sical, mental and

ps$chological fitness of prospecti'e regular members.! )urthermore, the$ emphasized that there

was no allegation that the$ were gi'en prior written notice of the hazing and that the$ had

permitted the acti'it$. As a final point, *a$abos et al.argued that the case against the principal

accused had alread$ been dismissed with finalit$ b$ the R&C. &here being no more principals

with whom the$ could ha'e cooperated in the e(ecution of the offense, the$ asserted that the case

against them must be dismissed.Sandiganba$an did dismiss the cse against them stressing that

before there can be an accomplice, there must be a principal b$ direct participation, the latter

being the originator of the criminal design. As there were no principal perpetrators to spea# of,

necessaril$, there was no one else with whom the$ could ha'e cooperated in the e(ecution of the

crime of hazing. In 'iew of the dismissal of the case against the principals, the the Information

charging *a$abos et al.as accomplices could no longer stand on its own.&o this, the the "ffice

of the "mbudsman, through the Special rosecutor, filed with this Court on 12 /arch 0; aetitionassailing the resolution.

ISS&ES%

I.

7/25/2019 Hazing Case

3/3

onetheless, 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.!