47 Chua

Hazing
Dungo vs People
FACTS: During an initiation rite a neophyte, as condition for his admission to the
fraternity, subject him to physical harm, resulting to his death. Accused was charged
with the crime crime of violation of Section 4 of R.A. No. 8049 or the Anti-Hazing Law of
1995. Dungo raised the defense that they do not have intention to kill.

ISSUE: Whether intent is essential requisite for the crime

RULING: No, The study of the provisions of R.A. No. 8049 shows that, on paper, it is
complete and robust in penalizing the crime of hazing. It was made malum prohibitum to
discount criminal intent and disallow the defense of good faith. It took into consideration
the different participants and contributors in the hazing activities. While not all acts cited
in the law are penalized, the penalties imposed therein involve various and serious
terms of imprisonment to discourage would-be offenders. Indeed, the law against
hazing is ideal and profound.
the Court noted that in our nation's very recent history, the people had spoken, through
the Congress, to deem conduct constitutive of hazing, an act previously considered
harmless by custom, as criminal. The act of hazing itself is not inherently immoral, but
the law deems the same to be against public policy and must be prohibited.
Accordingly, the existence of criminal intent is immaterial in the crime of hazing. Also,
the defense of good faith cannot be raised in its prosecution.