1 People v. Bayabos

RASHIDO
PEOPLE v. BAYABOS
RULE 110
FACTS: Fernando Balidoy was admitted as a probationary midshipman at the PMMA. In order to reach active status, all
new entrants were required to successfully complete the mandatory "Indoctrination and Orientation Period," which was
set from 2 May to 1 June 2001. Balidoy died on 3 May 2001. Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Zambales issued a
Resolution finding probable cause to charge those involved in the orientation and indoctrination of the PMMA Class of
2005, as principals to the crime of hazing. The Office of the Special Prosecutor eventually filed with the Sandiganbayan a
criminal case charging respondents (school authorities) as accomplices to the crime of hazing.
Meanwhile, the RTC–Zambales issued an Order dismissing the Information against the principal accused. Respondents
then filed a Motion to Quash the Information arguing, among others, that:
(1) the Information did not contain all the essential elements of the offense.
(2) there was no allegation that the purported act had been made a prerequisite for admission to the PMMA,
especially considering that the victim had already been accepted in the academy
(3) the case against the principal accused had already been dismissed with finality by the RTC. There being no more
principals with whom they could have cooperated in the execution of the offense, they asserted that the case
against them must be dismissed.
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR: The Special Prosecutor opposed the motion insisting that the Information alleged the material
facts that would sufficiently establish the presence of the essential ingredients of the crime of accomplice to hazing. There
was nothing in the law requiring that the principals must be prosecuted first before a case could be filed against the
accomplices.
SANDIGANBAYAN: 6 days before arraignment, the SB issued a Resolution quashing the Information and dismissing the
criminal case against them. According to the court, the fact that the charge against the principal accused was dismissed
with finality favorably carried with it the indictment against those charged as accomplices, whose criminal responsibility
was subordinate to that of the former. In any event, it found that the Information charged no offense, and that the
allegations therein were mere conclusions of law.
OMBUDSMAN: Aggrieved, the Office of the Ombudsman, through the Special Prosecutor, filed this Petition assailing the
SB Resolution.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the prosecution of respondents for the crime of accomplice to hazing can proceed in spite of the
dismissal with finality of the case against the principal accused.
(2) Whether the Information filed against respondents contains all the material averments for the prosecution of
the crime of accomplice to hazing under the Anti-Hazing Law
RULING:
(1) YES. It is a settled rule that the case against those charged as accomplices is not ipso facto dismissed in the
absence of trial of the purported principals; the dismissal of the case against the latter; or even the latter’s
acquittal, especially when the occurrence of the crime has in fact been established. As long as the commission of
the offense can be duly established in evidence, the determination of the liability of the accomplice or accessory
can proceed independently of that of the principal.
(2) NO. SC affirms the quashal of the Information against respondents. Section 14, Article III of the Constitution,
recognizes the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. RoC
requires that the information charging persons with an offense be "sufficient." One of the key components of a
"sufficient information" is the statement of the acts or omissions constituting the offense charged, subject of the
complaint. The information must also be crafted in a language ordinary and concise enough to enable persons of
common understanding to know the offense being charged against them. This approach is intended to allow them
to suitably prepare for their defense, as they are presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts
constituting the offense they have purportedly committed.
Motion to Quash must be granted, as the Information does not include all the material facts constituting the crime
of accomplice to hazing. The indictment merely states that psychological pain and physical injuries were inflicted
on the victim. There is no allegation that the purported acts were employed as a prerequisite for admission or
entry into the organization. Failure to aver this crucial ingredient would prevent the successful prosecution of the
criminal responsibility of the accused, either as principal or as accomplice, for the crime of hazing. Section 6, Rule
110 of the Rules of Court, expressly states that the information must include, inter alia, both "the designation of
the offense given by the statute" and "the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense."
This does not mean, however, that the Special Prosecutor is now precluded from filing another information.
Section 6, Rule 117, specifically states that an order sustaining a motion to quash would not bar another
prosecution.

1 People v. Bayabos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 People v. Bayabos

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 People v. Bayabos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RASHIDO

You might also like