Villarba vs.

Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 227777
Ponente
LEONEN, J
Decision Date
Jun 15, 2020
Omar Villarba is convicted for violating the Anti-Hazing Act after
subjecting Wilson Dordas III to hazing, resulting in physical and
psychological suffering, and the Supreme Court affirms his
conviction, ruling that the amendment to the information was not
substantial and the evidence against him was sufficient.

Facts:
 Omar Villarba was convicted for violating the Anti-Hazing Act after
subjecting Wilson Dordas III to hazing, resulting in physical and
psychological suffering.
 Villarba was a member of the Junior Order of Kalantiao, a fraternity
based in the Central Philippine University in Iloilo City.
 The original information charged Villarba and other members of the
fraternity with subjecting Dordas to hazing or initiation, resulting in
physical and psychological suffering and injury.
 The trial court found Villarba guilty and ordered him to pay
compensatory damages, moral damages, and attorney's fees to
Dordas.

Issue:
 Whether the amendment to the information was substantial and
whether Villarba's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him was violated.
 Whether the information was sufficient and whether the prosecution
sufficiently proved Villarba's guilt.

Ruling:
 The amendment to the information was not substantial and did not
require a second arraignment. It did not change the crime charged or
affect Villarba's defense.
 The information was sufficient as it adequately apprised Villarba of the
offense charged. The lack of specific language regarding the acts as a
prerequisite for admission to the fraternity did not invalidate the
information.
 The prosecution sufficiently proved Villarba's guilt through the
credible testimony of Dordas, who provided a detailed and categorical
narration of the hazing incident. The lower courts' findings on witness
credibility are entitled to great weight and respect.

Ratio:
 A formal amendment does not change the crime charged or affect the
accused's defense. It adds nothing crucial for a conviction as to
deprive the accused of the opportunity to meet the new information. A
second arraignment is not necessary for a formal amendment.
 The information need not reproduce the law verbatim in alleging the
acts or omissions that constitute the offense. As long as its language
is understood, the accused's constitutional right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against them stands unviolated.
 The factual findings of the trial court, especially on witness credibility,
are binding unless substantial facts were overlooked,
misapprehended, or misinterpreted. The testimony of a single witness
may suffice for conviction if it is deemed credible. Mere denial is
inherently a weak defense and cannot be accorded greater evidentiary
weight than the declaration of credible witnesses.