Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    Case No. 44 and 61

    Uploaded by

    PNP Mayoyao
    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no duplicity of charges against the petitioners. Duplicity of charges refers to a single complaint or information charging more than one offense. Here, each petitioner was charged with four separate offenses through four individual informations, with each information charging only one offense. The Court found this was proper as a single act can violate multiple laws. They also rejected the argument that the reckless imprudence charge absorbed the other charges, as a mala in se felony cannot absorb mala prohibita crimes which are violations of special laws.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case No. 44 and 61

    Uploaded by

    PNP Mayoyao
    43 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no duplicity of charges against the petitioners. Duplicity of charges refers to a single complaint or information charging more than one offense. Here, each petitioner was charged with four separate offenses through four individual informations, with each information charging only one offense. The Court found this was proper as a single act can violate multiple laws. They also rejected the argument that the reckless imprudence charge absorbed the other charges, as a mala in se felony cannot absorb mala prohibita crimes which are violations of special laws.

    Original Description:

    Criminal law case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no duplicity of charges against the petitioners. Duplicity of charges refers to a single complaint or information charging more than one offense. Here, each petitioner was charged with four separate offenses through four individual informations, with each information charging only one offense. The Court found this was proper as a single act can violate multiple laws. They also rejected the argument that the reckless imprudence charge absorbed the other charges, as a mala in se felony cannot absorb mala prohibita crimes which are violations of special laws.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    43 views2 pages

    Case No. 44 and 61

    Uploaded by

    PNP Mayoyao
    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no duplicity of charges against the petitioners. Duplicity of charges refers to a single complaint or information charging more than one offense. Here, each petitioner was charged with four separate offenses through four individual informations, with each information charging only one offense. The Court found this was proper as a single act can violate multiple laws. They also rejected the argument that the reckless imprudence charge absorbed the other charges, as a mala in se felony cannot absorb mala prohibita crimes which are violations of special laws.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    33.

    JOHN ERIC LONEY, STEVEN PAUL REID AND PEDRO B. HERNANDEZ, petitioners, vs
    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
    G.R. No. 152644, February 10, 2006

    Facts:
    Petitioners John Eric Loney, Steven Paul Reid and Pedro Hernandez are the President and CEO,
    Senior Manager and Resident Manager for Mining Operations, respectively, of Marcopper Mining
    Corporation (“Marcopper”), a corporation engaged in mining in the province of Marinduque.
    Marcopper 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 Makulapnit rivers. It appears that
    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. In a few days, 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 Water Code of the Philippines (PD 1067),
    National Pollution Control Decree of 1976 (PD 984), Philippine Mining Act of 1995 (RA 7942),
    and Article 365 of the RPC for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property.
    Petitioners moved to quash the Informations on the ground that the Informations were
    "duplicitous" as the DOJ charged more than one offense for a single act.

    Issue:
    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.

    You might also like