SC Acquits Two Alleged “Fraternity Members” of Hazing
SC Acquits Two Alleged “Fraternity Members” of Hazing
October 27, 2021
DOCTRINE:
Circumstantial Evidence; Criminal Cases.
• Direct evidence, the Court said, is not always necessary as it has become a settled rule that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a conviction.
• However, it stressed that “jurisprudence instructs that ‘for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent.’”
• The Court further emphasized that conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain that leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.
The Primordial Duty of the Prosecution
• The Court also underscored that “it is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and persuasion, so that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion.
Ads.
Simply scroll down to continue reading this article.
 |
| 2023 Bar Exam Quiz Cards Reviewer for ₱150 - ₱500. |
Ads.
 |
| ▶️ Watch here |
Ads.
 |
| ▶️ Watch here |
Ads.
.jpeg) |
| ▶️ Watch here |
ads.
ang buhay mo? Este ang books 
mo?LAW BOOK FLAGS / FILING TABS
Shop here: https://go.shopple.co/spm01i
More @ https://shopple.co/Lex-curiae
Visit 
"Bar techniques"
: Abubot ni atorni
• It is required of the prosecution to justify the conviction of the accused with moral certainty.
• Upon the failure to meet this test, acquittal becomes the constitutional duty of the Court, lest its mind be tortured with the thought that it has imprisoned an innocent man for the rest of his life.”
Note:
The Court noted that the enactment of RA 8049 was for the purpose of regulating hazing and other forms of initiation rites in fraternities, sororities, and other organizations. RA 8049 was amended by RA 11053 of the Anti-Hazing Act of 2018. Superseding Section 4 of RA 8049, Section 14 of RA 11053 now imposes more severe penalties for the offense of hazing.
The following are the elements of hazing under RA 8049, to wit:
1) that there is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority, or organization;
2) that there must be a recruit, neophyte, or applicant of the fraternity, sorority, or organization; and
3) that the recruit, neophyte, or applicant is placed in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him or her to do menial, silly, foolish, and other similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him or her to physical or psychological suffering or injury.
“In sum, the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution has failed to establish the elements of hazing and to produce an unbroken chain that leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to petitioners, to the exclusion of others, as the persons liable for the death of Samparada. Hence, petitioners’ conviction for violation of RA 8049 based on circumstantial evidence cannot be upheld,” the Court said.
FULL TEXT
Comments
Post a Comment