The Presence During Hazing is Not Merely Bystanding: It’s Participation

Devie Ann Isaga Fuertes v. The Senate of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 208162, January 07, 2020

Imagine a young student, eager to join a fraternity, subjected to a hazing ritual that ends tragically. The incident sends shockwaves through the community, sparking debates about responsibility and accountability. At the heart of this tragedy lies a critical legal question: Can mere presence at a hazing event make someone liable as a principal under the Anti-Hazing Law? This question was central to the Supreme Court case of Devie Ann Isaga Fuertes, where the court upheld the constitutionality of a provision that deems presence at hazing as prima facie evidence of participation.

The case involved Devie Ann Isaga Fuertes, a member of a sorority linked to a fraternity where a hazing incident resulted in the death of a neophyte, Chester Paolo Abracia. Fuertes challenged the constitutionality of the Anti-Hazing Law’s provision that treats presence at a hazing as evidence of participation, arguing it violated her presumption of innocence and constituted a bill of attainder. The Supreme Court’s ruling not only clarified the legal stance on this issue but also underscored the broader implications for those involved in such activities.

Legal Context: Understanding the Anti-Hazing Law

The Anti-Hazing Law, officially Republic Act No. 8049, was enacted to curb the dangerous practice of hazing, which has led to numerous tragedies. The law specifically addresses the secrecy and silence that often shrouds these events, making prosecution difficult. A key provision, Section 14, paragraph 4, states that “the presence of any person, even if such person is not a member of the fraternity, sorority, or organization, during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as a principal unless such person or persons prevented the commission of the acts punishable herein or promptly reported the same to the law enforcement authorities if they can do so without peril to their person or their family.”

This provision aims to dismantle the culture of silence by shifting the burden of proof. It recognizes that hazing often involves a conspiracy, where the presence of others can encourage or exacerbate the violence. The term “prima facie” means that the presence alone is enough to establish a presumption of participation, which can be rebutted by evidence showing efforts to prevent or report the hazing.

Legal terms like “prima facie” and “bill of attainder” might be unfamiliar to many. “Prima facie” refers to evidence that is sufficient to establish a fact unless disproven, while a “bill of attainder” is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without a judicial trial. In this case, the Supreme Court found that the Anti-Hazing Law does not constitute a bill of attainder because it still requires judicial determination of guilt.

Case Breakdown: The Journey of Devie Ann Isaga Fuertes

Devie Ann Isaga Fuertes was among 46 accused in a criminal case following the death of Chester Paolo Abracia during a Tau Gamma Phi fraternity initiation. Fuertes, a member of the sorority Tau Gamma Sigma, was present at the location where the hazing occurred. She challenged the constitutionality of the Anti-Hazing Law, particularly the provision treating presence as evidence of participation, directly to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, addressed several key issues:

• Ripeness for Adjudication: The court determined that the case was ripe for adjudication because the Anti-Hazing Law had been applied to Fuertes, directly affecting her.
• Hierarchy of Courts: The court noted that Fuertes should have raised her constitutional challenge in the trial court first, adhering to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. However, due to the transcendental importance of the issue, the Supreme Court took cognizance of the case.
• Constitutionality of Section 14: The court upheld the provision, stating that the presumption of participation based on presence is constitutional and does not violate the presumption of innocence. The court emphasized the logical connection between presence and participation, citing psychological studies on group dynamics and the role of bystanders in escalating violence.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning included the following quotes:

“The failure of individuals in a group to intervene allows evil acts to persist, as explained by Philip Zimbardo, the American psychologist behind the controversial Stanford Prison Experiment.”

“Through their express and implicit sanction, observers of hazing aggravate the abuses perpetuated upon neophytes. As an American fraternity member explained, hazing is ‘almost like performance art’ where the so-called audience plays as much of a role as the neophytes at the center of the initiation rites.”

Practical Implications: What This Means for You

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Fuertes case has significant implications for how hazing incidents are prosecuted and how individuals involved in such activities are held accountable. It sends a clear message that mere presence at a hazing event can lead to legal consequences, emphasizing the need for active intervention or reporting to avoid liability.

For students and members of organizations, this ruling underscores the importance of speaking out against hazing. It serves as a warning that silence and inaction can be interpreted as participation, potentially leading to severe penalties, including reclusion perpetua and fines.

Key Lessons:

• Understand that presence at a hazing event can be considered participation under the law.
• Actively intervene or report hazing incidents to law enforcement to avoid legal liability.
• Organizations should foster a culture of transparency and safety, discouraging hazing and encouraging reporting of such activities.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does ‘prima facie’ evidence mean in the context of the Anti-Hazing Law?
“Prima facie” evidence means that the presence of a person during a hazing event is enough to establish a presumption of participation, unless the person can prove they tried to prevent the hazing or reported it to authorities.

Can someone be charged with a crime for simply being at a hazing event?
Yes, under the Anti-Hazing Law, presence at a hazing event can lead to charges of participation as a principal, unless the person can show they attempted to stop the hazing or reported it.

What are the penalties for being involved in hazing?
The penalties can be severe, including reclusion perpetua and fines, especially if the hazing results in death, rape, sodomy, or mutilation.

How can organizations prevent hazing?
Organizations should implement strict anti-hazing policies, educate members about the dangers and legal consequences of hazing, and encourage a culture of reporting and intervention.

What should I do if I witness hazing?
If safe to do so, intervene to stop the hazing. If not, promptly report the incident to law enforcement authorities to avoid legal liability.

ASG Law specializes in criminal law and can provide guidance on cases involving hazing. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.