When Initiation Turns Deadly: The Case of Vince Andrew Delos Reyes

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo

The recent death of Vince Andrew Delos Reyes, a 19-year-old second-year cadet at the NYK-TDG Maritime Academy, underscores a longstanding and deeply troubling issue in Philippine educational institutions: hazing. The incident, reportedly triggered by a mere “thumbs up” sent to a group chat, has reignited the debate over the effectiveness of anti-hazing laws and the responsibilities of educational institutions.

Hazing in the Philippines

Hazing, a practice where initiates are subjected to abusive, humiliating, and often dangerous rituals, has a storied and tragic history in the Philippines. Despite legislative efforts to curb this practice, such as the Anti-Hazing Act of 1995 and its more stringent amendment in 2018, hazing remains a pervasive problem. The tragic death of University of Santo Tomas law freshman Horacio Castillo III in 2017 prompted significant legislative changes, yet incidents continue to surface, indicating gaps in enforcement and cultural entrenchment.

Analyzing the Incident: Diverse Viewpoints

From a human rights perspective, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) has rightfully condemned the incident as a blatant violation of the fundamental right to life and safety. CHR Chairperson Richard Palpal-latoc’s statement highlights the institution’s zero-tolerance policy towards such actions, emphasizing that severe physical punishments have no place in educational settings. This stance is supported by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which underscores the right to life, liberty, and security of person.

From a legal standpoint, the upperclassman “Nathaniel” faces charges of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Under Philippine law, particularly Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, reckless imprudence involves performing an act without malice but with lack of foresight or negligence, resulting in homicide. This provision will be central to the prosecution’s case against Nathaniel.

Liability and Legal Provisions

Direct Liability:

Nathaniel: As the immediate perpetrator, Nathaniel’s actions directly led to Delos Reyes’ death. Under the Anti-Hazing Act of 2018 (Republic Act No. 11053), individuals who participate in hazing that results in death face the harshest penalties, including life imprisonment without parole.
NYK-TDG Maritime Academy Officials: The officials may face administrative and civil liabilities for failing to prevent the hazing incident. The Anti-Hazing Act holds school administrators accountable if they fail to take action to prevent hazing activities.

Indirect Liability:

Commission on Higher Education (CHED): Despite CHED’s claim of limited enforcement power, their role in monitoring and addressing hazing incidents places a degree of responsibility on them. Legislative amendments granting CHED more quasi-judicial powers could be a potential solution to enhance their ability to enforce anti-hazing policies.
The Maritime Academy: Institutional liability can be pursued under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, which holds schools responsible for damages caused by their students while under their supervision.

Filing Cases and Possible Defenses

Filing Cases:

Criminal Charges: The primary venue for filing criminal charges is the local prosecutor’s office. The case against Nathaniel, for instance, would proceed through this channel before potentially moving to trial.
Civil Complaints: Families of victims can file civil cases for damages in regional trial courts. These cases would cite negligence and failure to provide a safe learning environment.
Administrative Complaints: Complaints against school officials and institutions can be filed with CHED or the Department of Education, which can impose sanctions ranging from fines to the suspension of operations.

Possible Defenses:

Nathaniel: He may argue that the exercises were not intended to cause harm, asserting lack of intent to kill. However, the excessive nature of the punishment undermines this defense.
School Officials: They might claim ignorance of the hazing activities. Yet, the Anti-Hazing Act mandates proactive measures, making ignorance a weak defense.
Institutional Defense: The academy may argue that they have established anti-hazing policies. The effectiveness and enforcement of these policies will be scrutinized.

Assessing the Strength of Cases

The strength of the criminal case against Nathaniel appears robust, given the direct link between his orders and Delos Reyes’ death. The prosecution will rely on testimonies, physical evidence, and possibly digital evidence from the group chat.

Civil and administrative cases against the academy and its officials will hinge on demonstrating negligence and failure to uphold a safe environment. Historical precedent, such as the Castillo case, may influence these proceedings.

Recommendations

To Educational Institutions:

Strict Enforcement: Implement and strictly enforce anti-hazing policies. Regular audits and surprise inspections could deter potential hazing.
Education and Training: Conduct mandatory seminars for students and staff on the dangers of hazing and legal consequences.
Support Systems: Establish robust support systems for students to report hazing anonymously.

To Lawmakers and CHED:

Enhanced Powers: Grant CHED more authority to impose sanctions on non-compliant institutions.
Review Legislation: Continuously review and update anti-hazing laws to close loopholes and address emerging trends in hazing practices.

To Students:

Awareness and Advocacy: Promote awareness about the risks and consequences of hazing. Advocate for a culture of respect and dignity within educational institutions.

In conclusion, Vince Andrew Delos Reyes’ death is a somber reminder of the urgent need for stringent measures against hazing. Accountability must be pursued vigorously to honor his memory and prevent future tragedies.