Loney v People

Case Name
John Eric Loney, Steven Paul Reid and Pedro B. Hernandez v. People of the Philippines
Topic Mistake of fact
Case No. |
152644 | 10 February 2006
Date
Ponente Carpio J.
Case
Summary
Decision Denied P’s motion for reconsideration
Doctrine Mala probihitia and mala in se

RELEVANT FACTS
• P who are officers for Mining Operations of Marcopper Mining Corporation
 Marcopper :had been storing tailings from operations in a pit in Mt. Tapian, placed a concrete plug
at tunnel’s end, discharged millions of tons of tailings into the Boac and Makalupnit Rivers
 DOJ charged P with violation of water code of the Philippines, Philippine mining act, national
pollution control degree and reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property.
 Petitioners moved to quash the Informations on the following grounds: (1) the Informations were
"duplicitous" as the DOJ charged more than one offense for a single act. (2) P not yet officers when
information took place (3) information contains allegations which constitute legal excuse or
justification.

RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
Whether all the NO
charges filed
against petitioners Duplicity of charges means a single complaint or information charges more than
except one should on offense. The filing of several charges is proper. A single act or incident might
be quashed for offend two or more entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law thus justifying
duplicity of charges the prosecution for more than one offense. The only limit is double jeopardy
and only the charge
for Reckless
Imprudence  Here, however, the prosecution charged each petitioner with four offenses,
Resulting in with each Information charging only one offense.
Damage to
Property should  The filing of several charges is proper. A single act or incident might offend
stand against two or more entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law thus
justifying the prosecution of the accused for more than one offense. The only
limit to this rule is the Constitutional prohibition that no person shall be twice
put in jeopardy of punishment for "the same offense." Here, double jeopardy
is not at issue because not all of its elements are present.

 On petitioners’ claim that the charge for violation of Article 365 of the RPC
 "absorbs" the charges for violation of PD 1067, PD 984, and RA 7942, suffice
it to say that a mala in se felony (such as Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Damage to Property) cannot absorb mala prohibita crimes (such as those
violating PD 1067, PD 984, and RA 7942). What makes the former a felony is
criminal intent (dolo) or negligence (culpa); what makes the latter crimes are
the special laws enacting them.

RULING
WHEREFORE, petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Decision of CA is AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATIONS

SEPARATE OPINION/S

NOTES