FACTS:

The case involves the criminal liability of schools and school authorities under the Anti-Hazing Law. The school authorities of the Philippine Merchant Marine Academy (PMMA) were charged as accomplices to hazing after an investigation on the death of Fernando C. Balidoy, Jr. during the mandatory "Indoctrination and Orientation Period" for new entrants. A criminal case was filed against the principal accused and the school authorities were charged as accomplices. However, the Sandiganbayan quashed the Information against the school authorities on the basis of the dismissal of the case against the principal accused and the failure to include the essential elements required by the Anti-Hazing Law. The Office of the Ombudsman filed a petition challenging the quashal of the Information. The threshold issues to be addressed by the Supreme Court are whether the prosecution of the school authorities can proceed despite the dismissal of the case against the principal accused and whether the Information filed against the school authorities contains all the material averments for the prosecution of the crime of accomplice to hazing under the Anti-Hazing Law.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the case against respondents on the ground that the case against the alleged principals had already been dismissed.

2. Whether the Philippine Merchant Marine Academy (PMMA) can be considered an organization under the Anti-Hazing Law.

3. Whether the failure to allege that the purported acts were not covered by the exemption relating to testing and training procedures and practices for prospective regular members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) warrants the quashal of the Information.

4. Whether the Information includes all the material facts constituting the crime of accomplice to hazing.

5. Whether the Sandiganbayan was correct in ordering the quashal of the Information and the eventual dismissal of the case.

6. Whether the Special Prosecutor is precluded from filing another information.

RULING:

1. The Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the case against respondents solely based on the dismissal of the case against the alleged principals. The dismissal of the case against the principals does not ipso facto dismiss the case against those charged as accomplices. As long as the commission of the offense can be duly established, the determination of the liability of the accomplice can proceed independently of that of the principal. In this case, the Sandiganbayan should have scrutinized the reason for the dismissal of the case against the principals instead of merely relying on the Order of Entry of Judgment.

2. The PMMA is considered an organization under the Anti-Hazing Law. The term organization, as used in the law, is broad and includes educational institutions such as the PMMA.

3. The failure to allege that the purported acts were not covered by the exemption relating to testing and training procedures and practices for prospective regular members of the AFP and the PNP does not warrant the quashal of the Information. This exemption is an affirmative defense that must be claimed by the accused, not by the prosecution. The prosecution's failure to point out the inapplicability of the exemption in the Information does not justify quashing the Information.

4. The Information must be quashed because it 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 acts were employed as a prerequisite for admission or entry into the organization. Failure to include this crucial ingredient prevents the successful prosecution of the criminal responsibility of the accused for the crime of hazing.

5. The Sandiganbayan was correct in ordering the quashal of the Information and the eventual dismissal of the case. Section 5, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court allows the filing of a new information after the motion to quash was sustained.

6. The Special Prosecutor is not precluded from filing another information under Section 6, Rule 117, unless respondents are able to prove that the criminal action or liability has been extinguished, or that double jeopardy has already attached.

PRINCIPLES:

• The case against accomplices is not automatically dismissed even if the case against the principals is dismissed or they are acquitted, as long as the commission of the offense can be established.

• The right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them is recognized under Section 14, Article III of the Constitution.

• A "sufficient information" must include the statement of the acts or omissions constituting the offense charged, crafted in a language that is ordinary and concise enough for persons of common understanding to know the offense being charged against them.

• An accused may assail the information filed with the court before entering a plea if the facts charged do not constitute an offense.

• In assessing the sufficiency of an information, the basic test is whether the facts averred would establish the presence of the essential elements of the crime as defined by law.

• The essential elements of the crime of hazing are: (1) placing a person in an embarrassing or humiliating situation or subjecting them to physical or psychological suffering or injury; and (2) employing these acts as a prerequisite for the person's admission or entry into an organization.

• School authorities and faculty members who consent to or have knowledge of hazing but fail to take action may be charged as accomplices.

• The term organization, as used in the Anti-Hazing Law, includes educational institutions such as the PMMA.

• The exemption relating to testing and training procedures and practices for prospective regular members of the AFP and the PNP is an affirmative defense that must be claimed by the accused.

• The burden of proof in establishing the exemption lies with the accused.

• The Information must include all the material facts constituting the crime to successfully prosecute the accused. Failure to include a crucial ingredient may warrant the quashal of the Information.

• Section 5, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court allows the filing of a new information after a motion to quash is sustained.

• Section 6, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court provides that an order sustaining a motion to quash does not bar another prosecution, unless it is proven that the criminal action or liability has been extinguished or that double jeopardy has already attached.