IS HAZING A CRIME/ WHAT YOU

NEED TO KNOW ABOUT HAZING

LAW

Man is a social animal. It is part of human nature to feel the need to belong. We are
born into society’s basic social unit, the family. As we grow older, we expand our
social groups owing to the fact that we discover and meet new people. We find
affinities and similarities to build friendships, clubs, and communities.

One of the most sought-after social groups are those exclusive ones that are found in
schools and universities. These are often named after Greek letters that are said to
embody brotherhood and sisterhood in their community.
Indeed, fraternal organizations, civilized or barbaric, are as old as human civilization
itself. In the Philippines, the Katipunan is said to be the first brotherhood by Filipinos
which was created to liberate the land from foreign yoke.
It is no surprise then that, even to this day, the appeal and influence of fraternities is
still strong.

Different organizations admit new members through decades-old rituals and

ceremonies known as initiation rites. However, these practices sometimes border the
line of reason and propriety.

These rites can sometimes become hazing. Hazing is a practice that dehumanizes a
person who seeks to be a member of a group, usually through the infliction of physical
or psychological harm or sometimes both.

It is a brutal and violent rite of passage and has been so commonplace in the
Philippines that has earned the disdain and condemnation of society. A story of a
neophyte dying at the hands of his brothers is frontpage news every so often.
The gruesome death of Lenny Villa in 1991 pushed the passage of R.A. 8049, which
defines hazing and penalizes those responsible for any physical injury inflicted in the
course of the act.
It also obliges schools and organizations to regulate any initiation rite. Despite the
enactment of the law, many others like Lenny still perished in hazing.

In 2018, Atio Castillo’s death in the hands of his fraternity brothers has urged
Congress to strengthen the law which led to the enactment of R.A. 11053.

What is the meaning of anti-hazing law?

Republic Act [RA] No. 11053 amends many provisions of the old Anti-Hazing law. It
outrightly criminalizes hazing as an act.
In the previous law, criminal liability only attaches when the victim of hazing suffers
any physical injury or dies as a result thereof. Thus, hazing was only regulated and to
a very minimal extent.

As the law now stands, all forms of hazing are instantly prohibited. Mere presence in
the conduct of hazing is forthwith penalized with reclusion temporal in its maximum
period and a fine of one million pesos.

Injury or harm is no longer necessary for an offender to be punished under the new
law. However, the latter also does not require intent for the crime of hazing to exist.
As a malum prohibitum, mere violation of the prohibited act constitutes an offense.
Contrary to the old law where hazing is only punishable when it is required for
admission, the new statute also expands the application of hazing as a requirement for
continuing membership in the organization.

The effect is clear. Hazing covers all forms of prohibited acts whether committed
against a neophyte or a full-fledged member.

Under the law, what is considered hazing?

Section 2(a) of R.A. 11053 defines hazing as any act that results in physical or
psychological suffering, harm, or injury inflicted on a recruit, neophyte, applicant, or
member as part of an initiation rite or practice made as a prerequisite for admission or
a requirement for continuing membership in a fraternity, sorority, or organization. [3]

The law does not stop there. Hazing is also present in any activity that tends to
humiliate or embarrass, degrade, abuse, or endanger by requiring a recruit, neophyte,
applicant or member to do menial, silly, or foolish tasks.

It should be stressed at this point that hazing and initiation rites are not synonymous.
The law clearly defines hazing as an act which forms part of an initiation rite. Thus,
not all initiation rites are hazing. This point will be elaborated later.

By way of exception, hazing does not cover practices done in the AFP and PNP to
determine and enhance the fitness of prospective members of these organizations.

Similar practices in uniformed learning institutions in their recruitment process as

well as customary athletic events and other similar contests or competitions are
exempted from the definition of hazing.

This can occur in any organization which is defined under Section 2(c) of R.A. 11053
as any organized body of people. The AFP, PNP, PMA, PNPA, and other similar
uniformed learning institutions are included in this definition.

What is the purpose of hazing?

Several research have studied the group dynamics and the reasons why organizations
embrace hazing as a rite of passage. Some organizations believe that aggression is
necessary to shape better members.
Activities for newcomers follow prescribed protocols that are shaped by tradition. It
serves as a test to applicants to determine their willingness in becoming members of
the organization.

They like to sift through applicants who are perceived as weak. They naturally prefer
those who can withstand the pain and suffering in an initiation rite.

It is also a way of showing dominance, as initiators demand submission which can

leave long-term impressions in neophytes. Organizations believe that hazing
establishes solidarity among members.

A consistent and committed membership is less likely to veer away from the goals and
aspirations of the group. Physical or psychological aggression is deemed an effective
tool to reinforce this.

Deference to tradition is also a strong factor why it is repeated in every recruitment

process. The established norm keeps the organization intact and helps cultivate shared
pride, a sense of belongingness.

What are the bad effects of hazing?

Despite the perceived benefits of hazing, its costs on human life is very high.
According to the ABS-CBN Investigative and Research Group, at least thirty-one
( 31) deaths have been reported which were cause by hazing or initiation rites in
fraternities since 1954, the year the first hazing victim was reported.

Since the passage of R.A. 8049 in 1995, twenty-one (21) more deaths due to hazing
were reported which exposed that the law’s futility. This does not reflect the
unreported ones. Those done in community fraternities which enjoyed practically
absolute freedom from government regulations.

Physical pain and injuries are also too frequent and almost an expected result of
hazing. Hazed neophytes would receive physical blows that can bruise for several
weeks.

This can lead to hospitalization and absences from school. Alcohol and drug abuse are
also reported in hazing activities resulting to intoxication. Unwanted sexual
intercourse with female applicant may become a condition for her acceptance.

Hazing also affects the mental health of initiates and members. Dehumanizing acts
can cause emotional duress, depression and other mental health concerns.

The victim may feel strong resentment towards the organization and the members
which is very unhealthy in every group setting.
The victim may also lose friendships outside the organization due to the humiliation
he faced in the hazing. There is an increased likelihood of violence and aggression
which affects the lives of victims outside the organization.

What is the difference between hazing and

initiation rites?
The law considers that hazing is a practice done as part of an initiation rite or a
condition for continuing membership. Thus, there can be no hazing if the act was not
committed as a condition for membership or continued affiliation. For practical
reasons, however, there are important distinctions between the two.

As we have established, hazing refers to any act which results to physical or

psychological suffering when done as part of an initiation rite.

An initiation rite, on the other hand, as defined in Section 2(b) of R.A. 11053 refers to
any ceremonies, practices, rituals, that a person must perform or take part in order to
be accepted into fraternity, sorority, organization as a full-fledged member. [4]

All hazing are initiation rites but not every initiation rite is a hazing. Initiation rites
may or may not involve hazing. Initiation rites are broader since they are similar to
rites of passage which are practiced by different cultures, religions, and tribal groups.
Not every known initiation rite involves physical violence or psychological abuse.

What are the requisites before initiation

rites be legally allowed?
Under the present law, initiation rites are regulated in every setting and is not just
limited to school-based initiation rites.

For school-based initiation rites, the requirements are the following:

a] Prior written application to the school authorities seven days before the
conduct of the rite. The written application shall include the following:

 Place and date of the initiation rites

 Names of the recruits, neophytes, or applicants to be initiate
 The manner by which the initiation rites will be conducted
 Names of the incumbent officers of the organization and any
person who will take charge in the conduct of the rites

b] The rites should not exceed for more than three days

c] The application should be under oath with a declaration that it has been
posted in the official school bulletin board, the bulletin board of the
 organization, and two other conspicuous places in the school or premises of the
organization

d] The application should be posted from the time of submission of the written
notice to the school authorities or head of organization and shall only be
removed from its posting three days after the conduct of the rites

For community-based organizations, fraternities or sororities, these are the following

requirements:

a] Written application made before the Punong Barangay in the barangay or

Municipal/City Mayor in the municipality or city where the community-based
organization, fraternity or sorority is based, not later than 7 days before the
scheduled initiation date. The application shall include the following matters:

 Place and date of the initiation rites, names of the recruits to be

initiated,
 Undertaking that no harm or any kind shall be committed by
anybody during the initiation rites
 A medical certificate of the recruit shall also be attached to the
application to ensure fitness to undergo initiation involving
physical activity which should not fall under the definition of
hazing
 Names of the incumbent officers of the community-based
organization and any person who will take charge in the conduct
of the initiation rites

b] The application should be under oath with a declaration that it has been
posted in the official bulletin board of the barangay hall or municipality/city
hall where the organization is based, and the bulletin board of the office of the
organization

c] The application shall be posted from the time of submission of the written
notice and shall only be removed from its posting three days after the conduct
of the initiation rites.

What is the duty of the head of school or

organization when there are initiation
rites?
The law also assigns an obligation to the head of school and the organization in the
conduct of the initiation rite.
Section 5 of the new law provides that the head of school or an authorized
representative should assign at least two representatives of the school to be present
during the initiation.

The representative’s duty is ensure that no hazing takes place during the initiation
rites and they should also document the entire proceedings. After the conduct of the
rite, the representative should make a report to the officials of the school on what
transpired during such rite.

Who are liable if a person dies, was raped,

was sodomized, or suffers from physical
injuries during hazing?
Section 14(a) of the new law penalizes those who actually planned or participated in
the hazing if death, rape, sodomy, or mutilation results as a consequence thereof. The
law imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of three million pesos on the
persons who actually planned and participated in the offense.

When can initiation rites be considered

hazing?
An initiation rite will only constitute hazing if there is an infliction of physical or
psychological harm through aggression and mental trauma. Some of the acts
considered as hazing are paddling.

There are common acts that are constitutive of hazing. These are paddling, whipping,
beating, branding, forced calisthenics, exposure to the weather, forced consumption of
any food, liquor, beverage, drug or other substance.

The law, however, is not restrictive. Any other brutal treatment or forced physical
activity which is likely to adversely affect the physical and psychological health of a
recruit is considered hazing.

May the responsible officials of the school

or of the police, military or citizen’s army
training impose administrative sanctions
on persons charged for violation of the
Anti-Hazing Law?
One of the novel provisions in the new law [RA 11053] is Section 13 thereof which
authorizes responsible officials to impose administrative sanctions to anyone charged
with violating the provisions of the Anti-hazing law even before their conviction.

It requires due notice and summary hearing before any administrative sanction is
imposed. Officials of uniformed learning institutions including the AFP and PNP may
also perform this statutory provision.

When is the owner of a place liable? Is he

an accomplice or a principal?
An owner or lessee of the place where a hazing is conducted is considered a principal
and shall be penalized with reclusion perpetua.
Nevertheless, the law requires that the owner or lessee has actual knowledge of the
hazing conducted but fails to take any action in preventing the hazing from occurring.

They are also equally responsible if they fail to report promptly the hazing that has
occurred to the law enforcement authorities if there is no peril to their persons or their
family.

When shall the parents of the persons

involved in hazing be held liable?
Similar to the owner or lessee, the parents shall be held liable as principals when the
hazing has occurred in the home of the officers or members of the fraternity and they
have actual knowledge of its occurrence but failed to prevent it from occurring or
failing to report it to the authorities when there is no peril to their persons or their
family.

May the school authorities and faculty

members be held liable? Are they
accomplices or principals?
The school officials and faculty members, on the other hand, are liable as accomplices
if they consented or allowed the conduct of the hazing. They are also responsible as
accomplices if they have failed to prevent the hazing despite actual knowledge of its
conduct.
Can the former officers and alumni be
held liable as principals even if they are
absent during the hazing?
At first glance, the new law seems to have amended and changed the liability of
former officers and alumni of the organization and they cannot be considered as
principals if they are absent during the hazing.

Section 14(d) imposes reclusion temporal to any former officers or alumni who
performs any act to hide, conceal or otherwise obstruct any investigation relating to
the hazing committed.
However, Section 14(b) penalizes all persons who planned the hazing and imposes the
highest penalty of reclusion perpetua. Mere planning does not necessitate actual
participation and thus presence may be dispense with.

Thus, former officers and alumni even if they are absent during the hazing may be
held liable as principals provided they actually planned the conduct of the hazing.

When does the prima facie evidence of

participation as principal arise?
Mere presence during hazing raises a prima facie evidence of participation as
principal. However, this is a disputable presumption that the accused can refute.
If the accused can prove that the they prevented the commission of the acts or
promptly reports it to the law enforcement authorities if there is no peril to their
person or family, they may validly refute the presumption.

Related Jurisprudence
Prior to the effectivity of the Anti-hazing law of 1998, offenders who were liable for
the death or physical injuries that occurred in the course of hazing were prosecuted for
crimes of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide or physical injuries due to the
lack of enabling law which recognized and affirmed hazing as a distinct and separate
offense.

What went before

In Bar Matter No. 712, July 13, 1995, [5] bar applicant Al Argosino was previously
convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence after pleading guilty to the lesser
offense after the death of Raul Camaligan in a hazing activity participated by
Argosino.
His application for probation was granted and then asked the Supreme Court to allow
him to take the oath as a lawyer. The Supreme Court in 1995 denied his request and
had this to say:

“Mr. Argosino’s participation in the deplorable “hazing”

activities certainly fell far short of the required standard of good
moral character.[6]
“The deliberate (rather than merely accidental or inadvertent)
infliction of severe physical injuries which proximately led to the
death of the unfortunate Raul Camaligan, certainly indicated
serious character flaws on the part of those who inflicted such
injuries.[7]
“Mr. Argosino and his co-accused had failed to discharge their
moral duty to protect the life and well-being of a “neophyte” who
had, by seeking admission to the fraternity involved, reposed trust
and confidence in all of them that, at the very least, he would not
be beaten and kicked to death like a useless stray dog. [8]

“Thus, participation in the prolonged and mindless physical

beatings inflicted upon Raul Camaligan constituted evident
rejection of that moral duty and was totally irresponsible
behavior, which makes impossible a finding that the participant
was then possessed of good moral character.

Rights of the School to impose disciplinary measures

As early as 1993, the Courts have upheld the right of schools and institution to impose
disciplinary measures to students found liable of hazing.

In Ateneo de Manila vs. Capulong [10] which involved the refusal of the school to admit
students who were found liable of hazing which was prohibited by the university’s
rules. The Supreme Court said:

“Hazing, as a ground for disciplining a student, to the extent of dismissal or

expulsion, finds its raison d’ etre in the increasing frequency of injury, even death,
inflicted upon the neophytes by their insensate “masters.” Assuredly, it passes the test
of reasonableness and absence of malice on the part of the school authorities. Far
from fostering comradeship and esprit d’ corps, it has merely fed upon the cruel and
baser instincts of those who aspire to eventual leadership in our country.” [11]

Intent is material
In Villareal vs. People,[12] the case involving the death of Lenny Villa whose death
became the reason of the passage of R.A. 8049, the Court has traced the history of
hazing in the Philippines and cited anti-hazing laws in the U.S.
It also had the occasion to discuss that despite the recently passed Anti-Hazing law
may not be made applicable to the case, an accused may be found guilty of a crime of
dolo despite the presence of a factual premise, as long as malicious intent is proven.

It was explained in this wise:

“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.”[13]

Hazing is against public policy

Perhaps one of the most comprehensive discussions on hazing in Philippine
jurisprudence is Dungo vs. People[14] which was decided in 2015.

Several accused were charged with violating R.A. 8049 when on the conduct of
hazing a recruit died. Justice Jose Mendoza discussed the history of US laws and
jurisprudence on hazing.

It categorically stated that the Anti-hazing law is a malum prohibitum and thus intent
is unnecessary to prove for criminal liability to arise. Citing Vedana vs. Valencia, it
said that:
‘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.”[15]

The court in that case stated the elements of hazing as: [16]

1. That there is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission

into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization; [17]

2. That there must be a recruit, neophyte or applicant of the fraternity,

sorority or organization; and[18]

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 activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical
or psychological suffering or injury.[19]

The Court noted that the law lacked penalties for hazing which resulted to
psychological harm:
 “Curiously, although hazing has been defined as consisting of those
activities involving physical or psychological suffering or injury, the
penalties for hazing only covered the infliction of physical harm. At
best, the only psychological injury recognized would be causing
insanity to the victim. Conversely, even if the victim only sustained
physical injuries which did not incapacitate him, there is still a
prescribed penalty.”
The law also denied the applicability of mitigating circumstance of prater
intentionem:

“Recognizing the malum prohibitum characteristic of hazing, the law

provides that any person charged with the said crime shall not be
entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to
commit so grave a wrong.”[21]

The Court also ruled that the prosecutions is not required to allege every specific step
of the planned of the initiation rite:

“Secrecy and silence are common characterizations of the dynamics of

hazing. To require the prosecutor to indicate every step of the planned
initiation rite in the information at the inception of the criminal case,
when details of the clandestine hazing are almost nil, would be an
arduous task, if not downright impossible. The law does not require
the impossible (lex non cognit ad impossibilia).” [22]

On the disputable presumption in the law and its relation to conspiracy, the Court
explained that:
Verily, the disputable presumption under R.A. No. 8049 can
be related to the conspiracy in the crime of hazing. The
common design of offenders is to haze the victim. Some of
the overt acts that could be committed by the offenders
would be to (1) plan the hazing activity as a requirement of
the victim’s initiation to the fraternity; (2) induce the victim
to attend the hazing; and (3) actually participate in the
infliction of physical injuries.

Logical connection | Fact proved and fact ultimately

presumed
One of the most recent cases on hazing is Fuertes vs. Senate of the
Philippines[23] decided in 2020. Accused in said case was charged with violation of
R.A. 8049 after the death of a neophyte occurred during a hazing of a fraternity.
Fuertes was a member of the sister sorority and was present while the hazing was
being conducted, she thus seeks to invalidate the disputable presumption clause in the
law as being violative of an accused’s right to presumption of innocence and the res
inter alios acta rule.

The Court in denying the petition explained:

 “The constitutional presumption of innocence is not violated when
there is a logical connection between the fact proved and the
ultimate fact presumed. When such prima facie evidence is
unexplained or not contradicted by the accused, the conviction
founded on such evidence will be valid. However, the prosecution
must still prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The existence of a disputable presumption does not preclude the
presentation of contrary evidence xxx[24]

“Xxx Petitioner fails to show that a logical relation between the

fact proved-presence of a person during the hazing— and the
ultimate fact presumed—their participation in the hazing as a
principal—is lacking. Neither has it been shown how Section 14 of
the Anti-Hazing Law does away with the requirement that the
prosecution must prove the participation of the accused in the
hazing beyond reasonable doubt.”[25]

Final thoughts
No one can be faulted for desiring to be a part of a group where they can feel the
sense of belongingness and pride of being a part of something bigger than they are.
Fraternal organizations can foster brotherhood and camaraderie that may be used to
achieve lofty goals.

Any organization has the right to implement varying mechanisms to test an

applicant’s willingness and fortitude to be a member. It has been proven that initiation
rites can create stronger bonds among the brothers and sisters in an organization.

Every right, however, has concomitant obligations and duties. No one can validly use
traditions and group mentality as an excuse to inflict harm, physical or otherwise, at
the expense of its budding members.

If it has the burden of keeping its membership safe from those it deems unworthy,
then, it has more reason to make its recruitment policies proper and in conformity
with law and human conscience.

May the strengthened provisions of the Anti-Hazing Law serve as a guide and not just
a deterrent to fraternities, sororities, and organizations to fulfill our bigger
responsibility towards society. That is to make everyone, regardless of their
association, free from violence and abuse.

References
References

↑1 RA 11053

↑2 RA 8049
↑3 Section 2[a], RA 11053

↑4 Section 2(b) of R.A. 11053

↑5 B.M. No. 712 July 13, 1995, In The Matter of The Admission to The Bar and Oath-Taking of
Successful Bar Applicant Al C. Argosino

↑6 Ibid.

↑7 Ibid.

↑8 Ibid.

↑9 Ibid.

↑10 G.R. No. 99327 May 27, 1993

↑11 Ibid.

↑12 G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2012

↑13 Ibid.

↑14 G.R. No. 209464, July 1, 2015

↑15 Ibid.

↑16 Ibid.

↑17 Ibid.

↑18 Ibid.

↑19 Ibid.

↑20 Ibid.

↑21 Ibid.

↑22 Ibid.

↑23 G.R. No. 208162, January 07, 2020

↑24 Ibid.

↑25 Ibid.