FINDING ANSWERS
The conviction of three former cadets of the Philippine Military Academy for the 2019 hazing death of Darwin Dormitorio should serve as a deterrent to the crime of hazing that was the focus of RA 8049, the original anti-hazing law I authored in 1995, and amended by RA 11053 that imposed tougher penalties.
In a 42-page decision by Judge Maria Ligaya Itliong Rivera of Regional Trial Court Branch 5 in Baguio City that was read in open court last Aug. 16, former cadets Julius Carlo Tadena, Shalimar Imperial Jr. and Felix Lumbasg Jr. were all found guilty and sentenced to reclusion perpetua or imprisonment of up to 40 years.
Imperial and Lumbag were also ordered to pay a fine of ₱3 million each and indemnify the Dormitorio family ₱75,000 for civil damages, ₱75,000 for moral damages, ₱25,000 for temperate damages, and ₱100,000 for attorney’s fees. Tadena was ordered to pay a ₱2 million fine.
The court ruling was hailed by the Dormitorio family who described it as “bittersweet” because the victim’s father, William, who succumbed to cardiac arrest just last month, did not live to see the day the verdict was rendered. It surely would have given him the closure he had so desperately sought for five years.
Still, the verdict can be seen as a triumph of the law and the entire criminal justice system.
As I’ve often said, it’s not just the law that has to be relied upon to curb criminality. The entire criminal justice system has to work. Its five pillars – police, prosecutors, judges, jails, and the community – must work efficiently to identify, apprehend, prosecute, convict and incarcerate offenders.
In the Dormitorio case, the successful pursuit of justice for hazing victims can be attributed to the law and the criminal justice system. But it was not always like this, as can be glimpsed from an incident more than a decade ago when one heartbroken father poignantly told another grief-stricken dad: “Sorry po at ganito ang justice system natin (I’m sorry this is our justice system)."
The words were uttered by Mac Ferdie Marcos – father of Marc Andrei, the San Beda law student who succumbed to hazing violence in 2012 – as he sent his sympathies to Aurelio Servando whose son, Guillo Cesar, a sophomore of De la Salle-College of St. Benilde, became a hazing fatality in 2014.
Marcos was expressing dismay over a September 2013 ruling by Cavite RTC Judge Perla Cabrera-Faller who had a chance to make history had she upheld the spirit and intent of RA 8049 in convicting those charged. Instead, many saw how she bungled her chance of a lifetime as she opted to dismiss the case saying, “No one is to be blamed for the death of Andrei Marcos.” A firestorm of protests erupted online as irate netizens described the ruling as the “most stupid decision ever.”
But there are court decisions that made good use of RA 8049, the original anti-hazing law I principally authored in 1995 during my second term as senator. “The law is rigorous in penalizing the crime of hazing,” the SC declared in its 2015 landmark decision affirming the conviction of two frat men for the fatal hazing of a UP Los Baños student in 2006.
In its July 1, 2015 decision (GR No. 209464) upholding the rulings of Calamba, Laguna Regional Trial Court Branch 36 and the Court of Appeals on the conviction of Alpha Phi Omega fraternity members Dandy Dungo and Gregorio Sibal Jr. for the fatal hazing of UP student Marlon Vilanueva, the SC said the following:
“Hazing has been a phenomenon that has beleaguered the country’s educational institutions and communities. News of young men beaten to death as part of fraternities’ violent initiation rites supposedly to seal fraternal bond has sent disturbing waves to lawmakers. Hence, RA No. 8049 was signed into law on June 7, 1995. Doubts on the effectiveness of the law were raised. The Court, however, scrutinized its provisions and it is convinced that the law is rigorous in penalizing the crime of hazing.
“Hopefully, the present case will serve as a guide to the bench and the bar on the application of RA No. 8049. Through careful case-build up and proper presentation of evidence before the court, it is not impossible for the exalted constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused to be overcome and his guilt for the crime of hazing be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must bear in mind the secretive nature of hazing, and carefully weave its chain of circumstantial evidence,” the SC said.
Indeed, the innate conspiracy of silence among perpetrators of the crime of hazing can make it extremely difficult for investigators and prosecutors to dig up direct evidence for a successful case buildup.
But it’s now easier for prosecutors to prove their case in court under the anti-hazing law. Quantum of evidence does not have to be proof beyond reasonable doubt to show intent to commit a wrong, because such is presumed to be part and parcel of the act of hazing. The latest court ruling ought to deter the crime of hazing. ([email protected])