Back

Fuertes vs. The Senate of the Philippines etc.

DEVIE ANN ISAGA FUERTES, PETITIONER, VS. THE SENATE OF PHILIPPINES, HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES, THE OF 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, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 208162 | 2020-01-07

EN BANC
 
D E C I S I O N
 
LEONEN, J.:
 
Section 14 , paragraph 4 of the Anti-Hazing Law,[1] which provides that an accused's presence during a hazing is prima facie evidence of his or her participation, does not violate the constitutional presumption of innocence. This disputable presumption is also not a bill of attainder.
 
This Court resolves a Petition for Certiorari[2] seeking to declare unconstitutional Sections 5 and 14 of the Anti-Hazing Law— specifically, paragraph 4 of Section 14. The paragraph provides that one's presence during the hazing is prima facie evidence of...