Practice question
An adult nonmember knowingly remains at a fraternity’s hazing. He neither prevents the acts nor promptly reports them, although reporting would expose neither him nor his family to peril. He argues that nonmembership makes his presence legally irrelevant. Which is correct under current section 14?
- Nonmembership categorically excludes the statutory presence rule
- Presence is an irrebuttable conviction and proof is unnecessary
- Presence supplies prima facie evidence of participation as a principal, subject to the statute’s qualifications and the criminal burden of proof
- Only persons who personally delivered blows may ever be prosecuted
- The presence rule applies only if a school dean is also present
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2018/ra_11053_2018.html — RA 11053 amendments to RA 8049, especially current sections 2–5, 12 and 14, hazing definition, initiation safeguards, consent and liability.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.