The public outrage over the death of Leonardo “Lenny” Villa – the victim in this case – on 10 February 1991 led to a very strong clamor to put an end to hazing.[1] Due in large part to the brave efforts of his mother, petitioner Gerarda Villa, groups were organized, condemning his senseless and tragic death. This widespread condemnation prompted Congress to enact a special law, which became effective in 1995, that would criminalize hazing.[2] The intent of the law was to discourage members from making hazing a requirement for joining their sorority, fraternity, organization, or association.[3]Moreover, the law was meant to counteract the exculpatory implications of “consent” and “initial innocent act” in the conduct of initiation rites by making the mere act of hazing punishable or mala prohibita.[4]
Sadly, the Lenny Villa tragedy did not discourage hazing activities in the country.[5] Within a year of his death, six more cases of hazing-related deaths emerged – those of Frederick Cahiyang of the University of Visayas in Cebu; Raul Camaligan of San Beda College; Felipe Narne of Pamantasan ng Araullo in Cabanatuan City; Dennis Cenedoza of the Cavite Naval Training Center; Joselito Mangga of the Philippine Merchant Marine Institute; and Joselito Hernandez of the University of the Philippines in Baguio City.[6]
Although courts must not remain indifferent to public sentiments, in this case the general condemnation of a hazing-related death, they are still bound to observe a fundamental principle in our criminal justice system – “[N]o act constitutes a crime… unless it is made so by law.”[7] Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. Even if an act is viewed by a large section of the populace as immoral or injurious, it cannot be considered a crime, absent any law prohibiting its commission. As interpreters of the law, judges arecalled upon to set aside emotion, to resist being swayed by strong public sentiments, and to rule strictly based on the elements of the offense and the facts allowed in evidence.
x x x."
