LONEY vs.

PEOPLE

482 SCRA 195

February 10, 2006

FACTS:

 Marcopper Mining Corporation had been storing tailings from its operations in a pit in Mt. Tapian, Marinduque. At the base of the pit ran a

drainage tunnel leading to the Boac and Makalupnit rivers.

 Marcopper had placed a concrete plug at the tunnel’s end which caused the tailings to gushed out of or near the tunnel’s end.

 The Mt. Tapian pit had discharged millions of tons of tailings into the Boac and Makalupnit rivers.

 The DOJ separately charged petitioners with violation of

1) Water Code of the Philippines (PD 1067)

2) National Pollution Control Decree of 1976 (PD 984)

3) Philippine Mining Act of 1995 (RA 7942), and

4) Article 365 of the RPC for 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.

ISSUE:

1j Whether all the charges filed against petitioners except one should be quashed for duplicity of charges and only the charge for Reckless Imprudence

Resulting in Damage to Property should stand.

HELD:

NO. There is no duplicity of charges in the present case. Duplicity of charges simply means a single complaint or information charges more than

one offense. A complaint or information must charge but one offense, except only in those cases in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment

for various offenses (Sec. 13, Rule 110). There is duplicity (or multiplicity) of charges when a single Information charges more than one offense.

Here, however, the prosecution charged each petitioner with four offenses, with each Information charging only one offense.

The filing of several charges is proper. 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. 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.

***

Mala in se and mala prohibita

 Mala in se refers to crimes that are wrong precisely because they are considered wrong IN AND OF ITSELF, whereas mala prohibita refers to

crimes that are wrong because they are prohibited.