G.R. No. 208162 , January 07, 2020
Devi Ann Isaga Fuertes, Petitioner, vs. The Senate of the Philippines, House of Representatives, The Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), Department of Budget and Management, Department of Finance, People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), Office of the City Prosecutor of Tayabas City (Quezon Province), The Presiding Judge of Branch 30, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City, and Heirs of Chester Paolo Abracia, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Devie Ann Isaga Fuertes is among the 46 accused in Criminal Case No. 2008-895 for violation of the Anti-Hazing Law ( Republic Act No. 8049 ) pending before Branch 30 of the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City. The charge stems from the death of Chester Paolo Abracia due to injuries allegedly sustained during the initiation rites of the Tau Gamma Phi Fraternity. Fuertes, a member of the sister sorority Tau Gamma Sigma, admitted she was present at the premises during the initiation rites. An Information was filed on October 20, 2008, alleging that the accused, acting in conspiracy, conducted an initiation rite on Abracia by hazing, inflicting physical injuries that caused his death, without prior written notice to school authorities and outside school premises. Fuertes filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of Sections 3 and 4 of the Anti-Hazing Law (later renumbered as Sections 5 and 14 by Republic Act No. 11053). She argued that Section 14, paragraph 4, which provides that an accused’s presence during a hazing is prima facie evidence of participation, violates the constitutional presumption of innocence, constitutes a bill of attainder, and infringes on the rule against cruel and unusual punishment. Public respondents opposed the petition, arguing procedural defects and asserting the constitutionality of the provisions.

ISSUE

Whether Section 14, paragraph 4 of the Anti-Hazing Law, which establishes that presence during a hazing is prima facie evidence of participation, violates the constitutional presumption of innocence and constitutes a bill of attainder.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 14, paragraph 4 of the Anti-Hazing Law. The Court ruled that the provision does not violate the constitutional presumption of innocence because a prima facie presumption is merely a disputable presumption that shifts the burden of evidence to the accused, but does not relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused can rebut the presumption by presenting evidence that they prevented or promptly reported the hazing. The Court also held that the provision is not a bill of attainder, as it does not impose guilt without a judicial trial; it merely establishes a rule of evidence for use in judicial proceedings. The law applies prospectively and generally to all persons who meet its conditions, not singling out specific individuals or groups for punishment. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.