Natural Resources and Environmental Law

Title of the Case: John Eric Loney, Steven Paul Reid, & Pedro B. Hernandez vs. People
of The Philippines

ISSUE/Legal Dispute: Whether multiple charges in violation of different environmental

Not less than 8 words laws can arise from a single act or incident causing great
Not more than 50 words environmental ruin.

ANALYSIS of FACTS:
Material facts only Marcopper dad been storing tailings (mine waste) from Mt. Tapian.
Do not cut and paste At the base of the pit ran a drainage tunnel leading to the Boac and
Use own words Makalupnit rivers. It appears that Marcopper had placed a concrete
Use 2 columns for timeline plug at the tunnel’s end.
-otherwise, merge cells March 24, The stored mine tailings gushed out of or near the
1994: tunnel's end. In a few days the Mt. Tapian pit had
discharged millions of tons of tailings into the Boac
and Makalupnit rivers
August The DOJ separately charged petitioners at the MTC for
1996: violations of R.A 7942, P.D. 1067, P.D. 984, and Art 365
of the RPC. On the other hand, Petitioners moved to
quash the information.
January 16, The MTC partially granted the quashal, sustaining only
1997: R.A. 7942 and Art 365 of the RPC

At The RTC: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari at the RTC

contending the non-quashal of R.A. 7942. On the other hand,
Respondents made a normal appeal. The RTC granted the appeal
and reinstated the charges under P.D 1067 & 984.
At the CA: The CA affirmed the ruling. Additionally, it enunciated the
non-applicability of the Relova Case

ANALYSIS of ARGUMENTS: Petitioners: John Eric Loney, Steven Paul Reid, & Pedro B.
Hernandez
(There are no counter-arguments given the nature of the case. That
being, a Petition for review on a petition to quash)
Match arguments with That the informations were "duplicitous" as the DOJ charged more
counter-arguments as much than one offense for a single act
as possible That the informations for violation of the 4 cited laws proceed from
and are based on a single act or incident. As such petitioner was
subjected to Double Jeopardy
That the doctrine of the Relova case should be applied. (doctrine
cited below):

“The law seeks to prevent harassment of the accused by multiple

prosecutions for offenses which though different from one another
are nonetheless each constituted by a common set or overlapping
sets of technical elements.”
CONCLUSION/Judgment/Resolution [not more than 100 words; do not cut and paste; use own words; if
you have to quote a paragraph – use quotation marks – explain after the quotation]

A single act or incident might offend against two or more entirely distinct and unrelated
provisions of law thus justifying the prosecution of the accused for more than one offense as long
as there is no double jeopardy. Here there is none since there are differences in the essential
elements of each violation. Additionally, the three other national laws cannot be absorbed by
Article 365(RPC) since it is elementary that a malum in se felony cannot absorb mala prohibita
crimes. Also, the Relova Doctrine is inapplicable since such only applies when it is between a
municipal and national law.