Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
People
G.R. No. 152644, Feb. 10, 2006
Facts: Petitioners John Eric Loney, Steven Paul Reid and Pedro B. Hernandez are the Pres.
and CEO, Senior Manager, and Resident Manager for Mining Operations, respectively, of
Marcopper Mining Corp., a corporation engaged in mining in the province of Marinduque.
Marcopper had been storing tailings (mine waste) 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
Makulapnit rivers. It appears that Marcopper had placed a concrete plug at the tunnel’s end.
On March 24, 1994, tailings gushed out of or near the tunnel’s end. In a few days, Mt. Tapian
pit had discharged millions of tons of tailings in to the Boac and Makalupnit rivers.
In August 1996, the DOJ separately charged petitioners in the MTC of Boac,
Marinduque with violation of Art. 91 (B), subparagraphs 5 and 6 of P.D. No. 1067 or the
Water code of the Phil., Sec. 8 of P.D. No. 984 or the National Pollution Decree of 1976, Sec.
108 of R.A. No. 7942 or the Phil. Mining Act of 1995, and Art. 365 of the RPC for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting to Damage to Property.
In the Consolidated Order of MTC, granting partial reconsideration to its Joint Order
quashing the information for violation of PD 1067 and PD 984. The MTC maintained the
Informations for violation of RA 7942 and Art. 365 of the RPC. Petitioners subsequently filed
a petition for certiorari with the RTC assailing that the portion of the Consolidated Order
maintaining the Informations for violation of RA 7942 and the petition was raffled to Br. 94
while public respondent’s appeal assailing that portion of the Consolidated Order quashing
the Info. for violation of P.D. 1067 and P.D. 984 and this appeal was consolidated with
petitioners petition.
MTC Br. 94 granted the public respondent’s appeal but denied petitioner’s petition.
Petitioners then filed for certiorari with the Court of Appeals alleging that Br. 94 acted with
grave abuse of discretion because 1.the Informations for violation of PD 1067, PD 984, RA
7942 and the Art. 365 of the RPC “proceeded from are based on a single act or incident of
polluting the rivers thru dumping of mine tailings, and the charge for violation of Art 365 of
the RPC absorbs the other charges since the element of “lack of necessary or adequate
protection, negligence, recklessness and imprudence” is common among them, 2. the
duplicitous nature of the Informations contravenes the ruling in People v. Relova. The Court
of Appeals affirmed the Br. 94 ruling.
Issue: 1. Whether or not 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
2. whether or not Br. 94’s ruling, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, contravenes
People v. Relova.