G.R. No.

152644 February 10, 2006

JOHN ERIC LONEY, STEVEN !"L REI# a$% E#RO &. HERN!N#E', Petitioners,
vs.
EOLE OF THE HILIINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
C!RIO, J.:
The Case
This is a petition for review
1
of the Decision
2
dated 5 Nove!er 2""1 and the Reso#$tion dated 1%
&arch 2""2 of the Co$rt of 'ppea#s. The 5 Nove!er 2""1 Decision affired the r$#in( of the
Re(iona# Tria# Co$rt, )oac, &arind$*$e, )ranch +%, in a s$it to *$ash Inforations fi#ed a(ainst
petitioners ,ohn Eric -one., Steven Pa$# Reid, and Pedro ). /ernande0 12petitioners23. The 1%
&arch 2""2 Reso#$tion denied petitioners4 otion for reconsideration.
The 5acts
Petitioners ,ohn Eric -one., Steven Pa$# Reid, and Pedro ). /ernande0 are the President and Chief
E6ec$tive Officer, Senior &ana(er, and Resident &ana(er for &inin( Operations, respective#., of
&arcopper &inin( Corporation 12&arcopper23, a corporation en(a(ed in inin( in the province of
&arind$*$e.
&arcopper had !een storin( tai#in(s
7
fro its operations in a pit in &t. Tapian, &arind$*$e. 't the
!ase of the pit ran a draina(e t$nne# #eadin( to the )oac and &a8a#$pnit rivers. It appears that
&arcopper had p#aced a concrete p#$( at the t$nne#4s end. On 2% &arch 1++%, tai#in(s ($shed o$t of
or near the t$nne#4s end. In a few da.s, the &t. Tapian pit had dischar(ed i##ions of tons of tai#in(s
into the )oac and &a8a#$pnit rivers.
In '$($st 1++9, the Departent of ,$stice separate#. char(ed petitioners in the &$nicipa# Tria#
Co$rt of )oac, &arind$*$e 12&TC23 with vio#ation of 'rtic#e +11)3,
%
s$!:para(raphs 5 and 9 of
Presidentia# Decree No. 1"9; or the <ater Code of the Phi#ippines 12PD 1"9;23,
5
Section =
9
of
Presidentia# Decree No. +=% or the Nationa# Po##$tion Contro# Decree of 1+;9 12PD +=%23,
;
Section
1"=
=
of Rep$!#ic 'ct No. ;+%2 or the Phi#ippine &inin( 'ct of 1++5 12R' ;+%223,
+
and 'rtic#e
795
1"
of the Revised Pena# Code 12RPC23 for Rec8#ess Ipr$dence Res$#tin( in Daa(e to
Propert..
11
Petitioners oved to *$ash the Inforations on the fo##owin( (ro$nds> 113 the Inforations were
2d$p#icito$s2 as the Departent of ,$stice char(ed ore than one offense for a sin(#e act? 123
petitioners ,ohn Eric -one. and Steven Pa$# Reid were not .et officers of &arcopper when the
incident s$!@ect of the Inforations too8 p#ace? and 173 the Inforations contain a##e(ations which
constit$te #e(a# e6c$se or @$stification.
The R$#in( of the &TC
In its ,oint Order of 19 ,an$ar. 1++; 12,oint Order23, the &TC
12
initia##. deferred r$#in( on
petitioners4 otion for #ac8 of 2ind$!ita!#e (ro$nd for the *$ashin( of the AIBnforations 6 6 6.2 The
&TC sched$#ed petitioners4 arrai(nent in 5e!r$ar. 1++;. /owever, on petitioners4 otion, the
&TC iss$ed a Conso#idated Order on 2= 'pri# 1++; 12Conso#idated Order23, (rantin( partia#
reconsideration to its ,oint Order and *$ashin( the Inforations for vio#ation of PD 1"9; and PD
+=%. The &TC aintained the Inforations for vio#ation of R' ;+%2 and 'rtic#e 795 of the RPC.
The &TC he#d>
ATBhe 12 Inforations have coon a##e(ations of po##$tants pointin( to 2ine tai#in(s2 which were
precipitate#. dischar(ed into the &a8$#apnit and )oac Rivers d$e to !reach ca$sed on the Tapian
draina(eCt$nne# d$e to ne(#i(ence or fai#$re to instit$te ade*$ate eas$res to prevent po##$tion and
si#tation of the &a8$#apnit and )oac River s.stes, the ver. ter and condition re*$ired to !e
$nderta8en $nder the Environenta# Cop#iance Certificate iss$ed on 'pri# 1, 1++".
The a##e(ations in the inforations point to sae set AsicB of evidence re*$ired to prove the sin(#e
fact of po##$tion constit$tin( vio#ation of the <ater Code and the Po##$tion -aw which are the sae
set of evidence necessar. to prove the sae sin(#e fact of po##$tion, in provin( the e#eents
constit$tin( vio#ation of the conditions of ECC, iss$ed p$rs$ant to the Phi#ippine &inin( 'ct. In
!oth instances, the ters and conditions of the Environenta# Cop#iance Certificate were
a##e(ed#. vio#ated. In other words, the sae set of evidence is re*$ired in provin( vio#ations of the
three 173 specia# #aws.
'fter caref$##. ana#.0in( and wei(hin( the contendin( ar($ents of the parties and after ta8in( into
consideration the app#ica!#e #aws and @$rispr$dence, the Co$rt is convinced that as far as the three
173 aforesaid #aws are concerned, on#. the Inforation for AvBio#ation of Phi#ippine &inin( 'ct
sho$#d !e aintained. In other words, the Inforations for AvBio#ation of 'nti:Po##$tion -aw 1PD
+=%3 and the <ater Code 1PD 1"9;3 sho$#d !e disissedC*$ashed !eca$se the e#eents constit$tin(
the aforesaid vio#ations are a!sor!ed !. the sae e#eents which constit$te vio#ation of the
Phi#ippine &inin( 'ct 1R' ;+%23.
Therefore, 6 6 6 Criina# CaseAB Nos. +9:%%, +9:%5 and +9:%9 for AvBio#ation of the <ater Code? and
Criina# CaseAB Nos. +9:%;, +9:%= and +9:%+ for AvBio#ation of the 'nti:Po##$tion -aw 6 6 6 are
here!. DIS&ISSED or DE'S/ED and Criina# CaseAB Nos. +9:5", +9:51 and +9:52 for
AvBio#ation of the Phi#ippine &inin( 'ct are here!. retained to !e tried on the erits.
The Inforation for AvBio#ation of 'rtic#e 795 of the Revised Pena# Code sho$#d a#so !e aintained
and heard in a f$## !#own tria# !eca$se the coon acc$sation therein is rec8#ess ipr$dence
res$#tin( to AsicB daa(e to propert.. It is the daa(e to propert. which the #aw p$nishes not the
ne(#i(ent act of po##$tin( the water s.ste. The prosec$tion for the AvBio#ation of Phi#ippine &inin(
'ct is not a !ar to the prosec$tion for rec8#ess ipr$dence res$#tin( to AsicB daa(e to propert..
17
The &TC re:sched$#ed petitioners4 arrai(nent on the reainin( char(es on 2= and 2+ &a. 1++;.
In the hearin( of 2= &a. 1++;, petitioners anifested that the. were wi##in( to !e arrai(ned on the
char(e for vio#ation of 'rtic#e 795 of the RPC !$t not on the char(e for vio#ation of R' ;+%2 as the.
intended to appea# the Conso#idated Order in so far as it aintained the Inforations for that
offense. 'fter a8in( of record petitioners4 anifestation, the &TC proceeded with the arrai(nent
and ordered the entr. of 2not ($i#t.2 p#eas on the char(es for vio#ation of R' ;+%2 and 'rtic#e 795
of the RPC.
Petitioners s$!se*$ent#. fi#ed a petition for certiorari with the Re(iona# Tria# Co$rt, )oac,
&arind$*$e, assai#in( that portion of the Conso#idated Order aintainin( the Inforations for
vio#ation of R' ;+%2. Petitioners4 petition was raff#ed to )ranch +%. 5or its part, p$!#ic respondent
fi#ed an ordinar. appea# with the sae co$rt assai#in( that portion of the Conso#idated Order
*$ashin( the Inforations for vio#ation of PD 1"9; and PD +=%. P$!#ic respondent4s appea# was
raff#ed to )ranch 7=. On p$!#ic respondent4s otion, )ranch 7= ordered p$!#ic respondent4s appea#
conso#idated with petitioners4 petition in )ranch +%.
The R$#in( of )ranch +%
In its Reso#$tion
1%
of 2" &arch 1++=, )ranch +% (ranted p$!#ic respondent4s appea# !$t denied
petitioners4 petition. )ranch +% set aside the Conso#idated Order in so far as it *$ashed the
Inforations for vio#ation of PD 1"9; and PD +=% and ordered those char(es reinstated. )ranch +%
affired the Conso#idated Order in a## other respects. )ranch +% he#d>
'fter a caref$# per$sa# of the #aws concerned, this co$rt is of the opinion that there can !e no
a!sorption !. one offense of the three other offenses, as AtheB acts pena#i0ed !. these #aws are
separate and distinct fro each other. The e#eents of provin( each vio#ation are not the sae with
each other. Conceded#., the sin(#e act of d$pin( ine tai#in(s which res$#ted in the po##$tion of
the &a8$#apnit and )oac rivers was the !asis for the inforationAsB fi#ed a(ainst the acc$sed each
char(in( a distinct offense. )$t it is a#so a we##:esta!#ished r$#e in this @$risdiction that F
2' sin(#e act a. offend a(ainst two or ore entire#. distinct and $nre#ated provisions of #aw, and
if one provision re*$ires proof of an additiona# fact or e#eent which the other does not, an ac*$itta#
or conviction or a disissa# of the inforation $nder one does not !ar prosec$tion $nder the other. 6
6 6.2
6 6 6 6
ATBhe different #aws invo#ve cannot a!sor! one another as the e#eents of each crie are different
fro one another. Each of these #aws re*$ire AsicB proof of an additiona# fact or e#eent which the
other does not a#tho$(h the. steed fro a sin(#e act.
15
Petitioners fi#ed a petition for certiorari with the Co$rt of 'ppea#s a##e(in( that )ranch +% acted with
(rave a!$se of discretion !eca$se 113 the Inforations for vio#ation of PD 1"9;, PD +=%, R' ;+%2
and the 'rtic#e 795 of the RPC 2proceed fro and are !ased on a sin(#e act or incident of po##$tin(
the )oac and &a8a#$pnit rivers thr$ d$pin( of ine tai#in(s2 and 123 the d$p#icito$s nat$re of the
Inforations contravenes the r$#in( in Peop#e v. Re#ova.
19
Petitioners f$rther contended that since the
acts cop#ained of in the char(es for vio#ation of PD 1"9;, PD +=%, and R' ;+%2 are 2the ver.
sae acts cop#ained of2 in the char(e for vio#ation of 'rtic#e 795 of the RPC, the #atter a!sor!s the
forer. /ence, petitioners sho$#d on#. !e prosec$ted for vio#ation of 'rtic#e 795 of the RPC.
1;
The R$#in( of the Co$rt of 'ppea#s
In its Decision of 5 Nove!er 2""1, the Co$rt of 'ppea#s affired )ranch +%4s r$#in(. The
appe##ate co$rt he#d>
The records of the case disc#ose that petitioners fi#ed a otion to *$ash the aforeentioned
Inforations for !ein( d$p#icito$s in nat$re. Section 7 of R$#e 11; of the Revised R$#es of Co$rt
specifica##. provides the (ro$nds $pon which an inforation a. !e *$ashed. 6 6 6
6 6 6 6
ADB$p#icit. of Inforations is not aon( those inc#$ded in 6 6 6 ASection 7, R$#e 11;B.
6 6 6 6
<e now (o to petitioners4 c#ai that the reso#$tion of the p$!#ic respondent contravened the
doctrine #aid down in Peop#e vs. Re#ova for !ein( vio#ative of their ri(ht a(ainst $#tip#e
prosec$tions.
In the said case, the S$pree Co$rt fo$nd the Peop#e4s ar($ent with respect to the variances in the
ens rea of the two offenses !ein( char(ed to !e correct. The Co$rt, however, decided the case in
the conte6t of the second sentence of 'rtic#e IG 1223 of the 1+;7 Constit$tion 1now $nder Section 21
of 'rtic#e III of the 1+=; Constit$tion3, rather than the first sentence of the sae section. 6 6 6
6 6 6 6
ATBhe doctrine #aid down in the Re#ova case does not s*$are#. app#. to the case at )ench since the
Inforations fi#ed a(ainst the petitioners are for vio#ation of fo$r separate and distinct #aws which
are nationa# in character.
6 6 6 6
This Co$rt fir#. a(rees in the p$!#ic respondent4s $nderstandin( that the #aws !. which the
petitioners have !een Achar(edB co$#d not possi!#. a!sor! one another as the e#eents of each crie
are different. Each of these #aws re*$ire AsicB proof of an additiona# fact or e#eent which the other
does not, a#tho$(h the. steed fro a sin(#e act. 6 6 6
6 6 6 6
ATBhis Co$rt finds that there is not even the s#i(htest indicia of evidence that wo$#d (ive rise to an.
s$spicion that p$!#ic respondent acted with (rave a!$se of discretion ao$ntin( to e6cess or #ac8 of
@$risdiction in reversin( the &$nicipa# Tria# Co$rt4s *$asha# of the Inforations a(ainst the
petitioners for vio#ation of P.D. 1"9; and P.D. +=%. This Co$rt e*$a##. finds no error in the tria#
co$rt4s denia# of the petitioner4s otion to *$ash R.'. ;+%2 and 'rtic#e 795 of the Revised Pena#
Code.
1=
Petitioners so$(ht reconsideration !$t the Co$rt of 'ppea#s denied their otion in its Reso#$tion of
1% &arch 2""2.
Petitioners raise the fo##owin( a##e(ed errors of the Co$rt of 'ppea#s>
I. T/E COERT O5 'PPE'-S CO&&ITTED ' RAEBGERSI)-E ERROR IN
&'INT'ININH T/E C/'RHES 5OR GIO-'TION O5 T/E P/I-IPPINE &ININH
'CT 1R.'. ;+%23 'ND REINST'TINH T/E C/'RHES 5OR GIO-'TION O5 T/E
<'TER CODE 1P.D. 1"9;3 'ND PO--ETION CONTRO- -'< 1P.D. +=%3,
CONSIDERINH T/'T>
'. T/E IN5OR&'TIONS 5OR GIO-'TION O5 T/E <'TER CODE 1P.D.
1"9;3, T/E PO--ETION CONTRO- -'< 1P.D. +=%3, T/E P/I-IPPINE
&ININH 'CT 1R.'. ;+%23 'ND 'RTIC-E 795 O5 T/E REGISED PEN'-
CODE PROCEED 5RO& 'ND 'RE )'SED ON ' SINH-E 'CT OR
INCIDENT O5 PO--ETINH T/E )O'C 'ND &'IE-'PNIT RIGERS
T/RE DE&PINH O5 &INE T'I-INHS.
). T/E PROSECETION O5 PETITIONERS 5OR DEP-ICITOES 'ND
&E-TIP-E C/'RHES CONTR'GENES T/E DOCTRINE -'ID DO<N IN
PEOP-E GS. RE-OG', 1%= SCR' 2+2 A1+=9 T/'T 2'N 'CCESED
S/OE-D NOT )E /'R'SSED )J &E-TIP-E PROSECETIONS 5OR
O55ENSES </IC/ T/OEH/ DI55ERENT 5RO& ONE 'NOT/ER 'RE
NONET/E-ESS E'C/ CONSTITETED )J ' CO&&ON SET OR
OGER-'PPINH SETS O5 TEC/NIC'- E-E&ENTS.2
II. T/E COERT O5 'PPE'-S CO&&ITTED ' REGERSI)-E ERROR IN RE-INH
T/'T T/E E-E&ENT O5 -'CI O5 NECESS'RJ OR 'DEDE'TE PREC'ETION,
NEH-IHENCE, RECI-ESSNESS 'ND I&PREDENCE ENDER 'RTIC-E 759 AsicB
O5 T/E REGISED PEN'- CODE DOES NOT 5'-- <IT/IN T/E '&)IT O5 'NJ
O5 T/E E-E&ENTS O5 T/E PERTINENT PROGISIONS O5 T/E <'TER CODE,
PO--ETION CONTRO- -'< 'ND P/I-IPPINE &ININH 'CT C/'RHED
'H'INST PETITIONERSA.B
1+
The Iss$es
The petition raises these iss$es>
113 <hether a## the char(es fi#ed a(ainst petitioners e6cept one sho$#d !e *$ashed for
d$p#icit. of char(es and on#. the char(e for Rec8#ess Ipr$dence Res$#tin( in Daa(e to
Propert. sho$#d stand? and
123 <hether )ranch +%4s r$#in(, as affired !. the Co$rt of 'ppea#s, contravenes Peop#e
v. Re#ova.
The R$#in( of the Co$rt
The petition has no erit.
No D$p#icit. of Char(es in the Present Case
D$p#icit. of char(es sip#. eans a sin(#e cop#aint or inforation char(es ore than one offense,
as Section 17 of R$#e 11"
2"
of the 1+=5 R$#es of Criina# Proced$re c#ear#. states>
Duplicity of offense. F ' cop#aint or inforation $st char(e !$t one offense, e6cept on#. in those
cases in which e6istin( #aws prescri!e a sin(#e p$nishent for vario$s offenses.
In short, there is d$p#icit. 1or $#tip#icit.3 of char(es when a sin(#e Inforation char(es ore than
one offense.
21
Ender Section 71e3, R$#e 11;
22
of the 1+=5 R$#es of Criina# Proced$re, d$p#icit. of offenses in a
sin(#e inforation is a (ro$nd to *$ash the Inforation. The R$#es prohi!it the fi#in( of s$ch
Inforation to avoid conf$sin( the acc$sed in preparin( his defense.
27
/ere, however, the
prosec$tion char(ed each petitioner with fo$r offenses, with each Inforation char(in( on#. one
offense. Th$s, petitioners erroneo$s#. invo8e d$p#icit. of char(es as a (ro$nd to *$ash the
Inforations. On this score a#one, the petition deserves o$tri(ht denia#.
The 5i#in( of Severa# Char(es is Proper
Petitioners contend that the. sho$#d !e char(ed with one offense on#. K Rec8#ess Ipr$dence
Res$#tin( in Daa(e to Propert. K !eca$se 113 a## the char(es fi#ed a(ainst the 2proceed fro and
are !ased on a sin(#e act or incident of po##$tin( the )oac and &a8a#$pnit rivers thr$ d$pin( of
ine tai#in(s2 and 123 the char(e for vio#ation of 'rtic#e 795 of the RPC 2a!sor!s2 the other char(es
since the e#eent of 2#ac8 of necessar. or ade*$ate protection, ne(#i(ence, rec8#essness and
ipr$dence2 is coon aon( the.
The contention has no erit.
's ear#. as the start of the #ast cent$r., this Co$rt had r$#ed that a sin(#e act or incident i(ht offend
a(ainst two or ore entire#. distinct and $nre#ated provisions of #aw th$s @$stif.in( the prosec$tion
of the acc$sed for ore than one offense.
2%
The on#. #iit to this r$#e is the Constit$tiona#
prohi!ition that no person sha## !e twice p$t in @eopard. of p$nishent for 2the sae offense.2
25
In
Peop#e v. Dori*$e0,
29
we he#d that two 1or ore3 offenses arisin( fro the sae act are not 2the
sae2 K
6 6 6 if one provision Aof #awB re*$ires proof of an additiona# fact or e#eent which the other does
not, 6 6 6. Phrased e#sewise, where two different #aws 1or artic#es of the sae code3 define two
cries, prior @eopard. as to one of the is no o!stac#e to a prosec$tion of the other, a#tho$(h !oth
offenses arise fro the sae facts, if each crie invo#ves soe iportant act which is not an
essentia# e#eent of the other.
2;
1Ephasis s$pp#ied3
/ere, do$!#e @eopard. is not at iss$e !eca$se not a## of its e#eents are present.
2=
/owever, for the
#iited p$rpose of controvertin( petitioners4 c#ai that the. sho$#d !e char(ed with one offense
on#., we *$ote with approva# )ranch +%4s coparative ana#.sis of PD 1"9;, PD +=%, R' ;+%2, and
'rtic#e 795 of the RPC showin( that in each of these #aws on which petitioners were char(ed, there
is one essentia# e#eent not re*$ired of the others, th$s>
In P.D. 1"9; 1Phi#ippines <ater Code3, the additiona# e#eent to !e esta!#ished is the d$pin( of
ine tai#in(s into the &a8$#apnit River and the entire )oac River S.ste witho$t prior perit fro
the a$thorities concerned. The (ravaen of the offense here is the a!sence of the proper perit to
d$p said ine tai#in(s. This e#eent is not indispensa!#e in the prosec$tion for vio#ation of PD
+=% 1'nti:Po##$tion -aw3, AR'B ;+%2 1Phi#ippine &inin( 'ct3 and 'rt. 795 of the Revised Pena#
Code. One can !e va#id#. prosec$ted for vio#atin( the <ater Code even in the a!sence of act$a#
po##$tion, or even AifB it has cop#ied with the ters of its Environenta# Cop#iance Certificate, or
f$rther, even AifB it did ta8e the necessar. preca$tions to prevent daa(e to propert..
In P.D. +=% 1'nti:Po##$tion -aw3, the additiona# fact that $st !e proved is the e6istence of act$a#
po##$tion. The (ravaen is the po##$tion itse#f. In the a!sence of an. po##$tion, the acc$sed $st !e
e6onerated $nder this #aw a#tho$(h there was $na$thori0ed d$pin( of ine tai#in(s or #ac8 of
preca$tion on its part to prevent daa(e to propert..
In R.'. ;+%2 1Phi#ippine &inin( 'ct3, the additiona# fact that $st !e esta!#ished is the wi##f$#
vio#ation and (ross ne(#ect on the part of the acc$sed to a!ide !. the ters and conditions of the
Environenta# Cop#iance Certificate, partic$#ar#. that the &arcopper sho$#d ens$re the
containent of r$n:off and si#t ateria#s fro reachin( the &o(po( and )oac Rivers. If there was
no vio#ation or ne(#ect, and that the acc$sed satisfactori#. proved AsicB that &arcopper had done
ever.thin( to ens$re containent of the r$n:off and si#t ateria#s, the. wi## not !e #ia!#e. It does not
fo##ow, however, that the. cannot !e prosec$ted $nder the <ater Code, 'nti:Po##$tion -aw and the
Revised Pena# Code !eca$se vio#ation of the Environenta# Cop#iance Certificate is not an
essentia# e#eent of these #aws.
On the other hand, the additiona# e#eent that $st !e esta!#ished in 'rt. 795 of the Revised Pena#
Code is the #ac8 of necessar. or ade*$ate preca$tion, ne(#i(ence, rec8#essness and ipr$dence on
the part of the acc$sed to prevent daa(e to propert.. This e#eent is not re*$ired $nder the
previo$s #aws. En*$estiona!#., it is different fro d$pin( of ine tai#in(s witho$t perit, or
ca$sin( po##$tion to the )oac river s.ste, $ch ore fro vio#ation or ne(#ect to a!ide !. the
ters of the Environenta# Cop#iance Certificate. &oreover, the offenses p$nished !. specia# #aw
are a#AaB prohi!ita in contrast with those p$nished !. the Revised Pena# Code which are a#a in
se.
2+
Conse*$ent#., the fi#in( of the $#tip#e char(es a(ainst petitioners, a#tho$(h !ased on the sae
incident, is consistent with sett#ed doctrine.
On petitioners4 c#ai that the char(e for vio#ation of 'rtic#e 795 of the RPC 2a!sor!s2 the char(es
for vio#ation of PD 1"9;, PD +=%, and R' ;+%2, s$ffice it to sa. that a a#a in se fe#on. 1s$ch as
Rec8#ess Ipr$dence Res$#tin( in Daa(e to Propert.3 cannot a!sor! a#a prohi!ita cries 1s$ch
as those vio#atin( PD 1"9;, PD +=%, and R' ;+%23. <hat a8es the forer a fe#on. is criina#
intent 1do#o3 or ne(#i(ence 1c$#pa3? what a8es the #atter cries are the specia# #aws enactin( the.
Peop#e v. Re#ova not in Point
Petitioners reiterate their contention in the Co$rt of 'ppea#s that their prosec$tion contravenes this
Co$rt4s r$#in( in Peop#e v. Re#ova. In partic$#ar, petitioners cite the Co$rt4s stateent in Re#ova that
the #aw see8s to prevent harassent of the acc$sed !. 2$#tip#e prosec$tions for offenses which
tho$(h different fro one another are nonethe#ess each constit$ted !. a coon set or over#appin(
sets of technica# e#eents.2
This contention is a#so witho$t erit.1avvphil.net
The iss$e in Re#ova is whether the act of the )atan(as 'ctin( Cit. 5isca# in char(in( one &an$e#
Op$#encia 12Op$#encia23 with theft of e#ectric power $nder the RPC, after the #atter had !een
ac*$itted of vio#atin( a Cit. Ordinance pena#i0in( the $na$thori0ed insta##ation of e#ectrica# wirin(,
vio#ated Op$#encia4s ri(ht a(ainst do$!#e @eopard.. <e he#d that it did, not !eca$se the offenses
p$nished !. those two #aws were the sae !$t !eca$se the act (ivin( rise to the char(es was
p$nished !. an ordinance and a nationa# stat$te, th$s fa##in( within the proscription a(ainst $#tip#e
prosec$tions for the sae act $nder the second sentence in Section 22, 'rtic#e IG of the 1+;7
Constit$tion, now Section 21, 'rtic#e III of the 1+=; Constit$tion. <e he#d>
The petitioner conc#$des that>
2The $na$thori0ed insta##ation p$nished !. the ordinance Aof )atan(as Cit.B is not the same as theft
of e#ectricit. A$nder the Revised Pena# CodeB? that the second offense is not an attempt to coit
the first or a frustration thereof and that the second offense is not necessarily included in the offense
charged in the first information.2
The a!ove ar($entA B ade !. the petitioner AisB of co$rse correct. This is c#ear !oth fro the
e6press ters of the constit$tiona# provision invo#ved F which reads as fo##ows>
2No person sha## !e twice p$t in @eopard. of p$nishent for the sae offense. If an act is p$nished
!. a #aw and an ordinance, conviction or ac*$itta# $nder either sha## constit$te a !ar to another
prosec$tion for the sae act.2 6 6 6
and fro o$r case #aw on this point. The !asic diffic$#t. with the petitioner4s position is that it $st
!e e6ained, not $nder the ters of the first sentence of 'rtic#e IG 1223 of the 1+;7 Constit$tion,
!$t rather $nder the second sentence of the sae section. The first sentence of 'rtic#e IG 1223 sets
forth the (enera# r$#e> the constit$tiona# protection a(ainst do$!#e @eopard. is not avai#a!#e where
the second prosec$tion is for an offense that is different fro the offense char(ed in the first or prior
prosec$tion, a#tho$(h !oth the first and second offenses a. !e !ased $pon the sae act or set of
acts. The second sentence of 'rtic#e IG 1223 e!odies an e6ception to the (enera# proposition> the
constit$tiona# protection, a(ainst do$!#e @eopard. is avai#a!#e a#tho$(h the prior offense char(ed
$nder an ordinance !e different fro the offense char(ed s$!se*$ent#. $nder a nationa# stat$te s$ch
as the Revised Pena# Code, provided that !oth offenses sprin( fro the sae act or set of acts. 6 6
6
7"
1Ita#ici0ation in the ori(ina#? !o#dfacin( s$pp#ied3
Th$s, Re#ova is no a$thorit. for petitioners4 c#ai a(ainst $#tip#e prosec$tions !ased on a sin(#e
act not on#. !eca$se the *$estion of do$!#e @eopard. is not at iss$e here, !$t a#so !eca$se, as the
Co$rt of 'ppea#s he#d, petitioners are !ein( prosec$ted for an act or incident p$nished !. fo$r
nationa# stat$tes and not !. an ordinance and a nationa# stat$te. In short, petitioners, if ever, fa##
$nder the first sentence of Section 21, 'rtic#e III which prohi!its $#tip#e prosec$tion for the sae
offense, and not, as in Re#ova, for offenses arisin( fro the sae incident.
</ERE5ORE, we DENJ the petition. <e '55IR& the Decision dated 5 Nove!er 2""1 and the
Reso#$tion dated 1% &arch 2""2 of the Co$rt of 'ppea#s.
SO ORDERED.
Criminal Law Mala In Se vs Mala Prohiita
&arcopper &inin( has !een storin( ine tai#in(s fro its operations. 't the !ase of the pit, there is
a draina(e that #eads to two rivers.
&arcopper was char(ed with vio#ation of 7 specia# #aws and rec8#ess ipr$dence res$#tin( in
daa(e to propert..
It is the contention of arcopper that the vio#ations of the specia# #aws are a!sor!ed in rec8#ess
ipr$dence res$#tin( in daa(e to propert..
ISS"E( <hether or not cries a#a inse are a!sor!ed in cries a#a prohi!ita.
HEL#( No. cries a#a inse are not a!sor!ed in cries a#a prohi!ita.
Distinctions of a#a inse 1&I3 vs a#a prohi!ita 1&P3>
L. neonics are PEHGI&CL
1. !S "# P$%&#%M!'C$
&I:ta8en into consideration
&P: not ta8en into consideration
(. !S "# E)$C*"I#'
&I:ta8en into consideration
&P:not ta8en into consideration
+. !S "# G##D &!I",
&I:it is a va#id defense
&P:not a va#id defense
-. !S "# VI#L!"I#'
&I:it is a vio#ation of the RPC
&P:it is a vio#ation of the specia# #aws
.. !S "# I'"$'"
&I:intent is ateria#
&P:intent is not ateria#
/. !S "# M#%!L
&I: invo#ves ora# t$rpit$de
&P: does not invo#ve ora# t$pit$de
0. !S "# CI%C*MS"!'C$S
&I: ta8en into consideration
&P:not ta8en into consideration
G.R. No. 16))52 Se*+e,ber -0, 200)
SH!RIC! .!RI L. GO/T!N, Petitioner,
vs.
SO"SES ERFECTO C. T!N a$% J"!NIT! L. T!N, Respondents.
L
D E C I S I O N
!"STRI!/.!RTINE', J.:
)efore the Co$rt is a Petition for Review on Certiorari $nder R$#e %5 of the R$#es of Co$rt assai#in(
the Reso#$tion
1
dated &arch ;, 2""5 of the Re(iona# Tria# Co$rt 1RTC3, )ranch +%, D$e0on Cit. in
Civi# Case No. D:"5:5%579 and the RTC Reso#$tion
2
dated ,$#. 11, 2""5 which denied petitionerMs
Gerified &otion for Reconsideration.
The fact$a# !ac8(ro$nd of the case>
On 'pri# 1=, 1+++, Sharica &ari -. Ho:Tan 1petitioner3 and Steven -. Tan 1Steven3 were
arried.
7
O$t of this $nion, two fea#e chi#dren were !orn, I.ra Danie##e
%
and Iristen Denise.
5
On
,an$ar. 12, 2""5, !are#. si6 .ears into the arria(e, petitioner fi#ed a Petition with Pra.er for the
Iss$ance of a Teporar. Protective Order 1TPO3
9
a(ainst Steven and her parents:in:#aw, Spo$ses
Perfecto C. Tan and ,$anita -. Tan 1respondents3 !efore the RTC. She a##e(ed that Steven, in
conspirac. with respondents, were ca$sin( ver!a#, ps.cho#o(ica# and econoic a!$ses $pon her in
vio#ation of Section 5, para(raphs 1e31231731%3, 1h3153, and 1i3
;
of Rep$!#ic 'ct 1R.'.3 No.
+292,
=
otherwise 8nown as the 2'nti:Gio#ence '(ainst <oen and Their Chi#dren 'ct of 2""%.2
On ,an$ar. 25, 2""5, the RTC iss$ed an OrderCNotice
+
(rantin( petitionerMs pra.er for a TPO.
On 5e!r$ar. ;, 2""5, respondents fi#ed a &otion to Disiss with Opposition to the Iss$ance of
Peranent Protection Order !d Cautelam and Coent on the Petition,
1"
contendin( that the RTC
#ac8ed @$risdiction over their persons since, as parents:in:#aw of the petitioner, the. were not
covered !. R.'. No. +292.
On 5e!r$ar. 2=, 2""5, petitioner fi#ed a Coent on Opposition
11
to respondentsM &otion to
Disiss ar($in( that respondents were covered !. R.'. No. +292 $nder a #i!era# interpretation
thereof aied at prootin( the protection and safet. of victis of vio#ence.
On &arch ;, 2""5, the RTC iss$ed a Reso#$tion
12
disissin( the case as to respondents on the
(ro$nd that, !ein( the parents:in:#aw of the petitioner, the. were not inc#$dedCcovered as
respondents $nder R.'. No. +292 $nder the we##:8nown r$#e of #aw 2e1pressio unius est e1clusio
alterius.2
17
On &arch 19, 2""5, petitioner fi#ed her Gerified &otion for Reconsideration
1%
contendin( that the
doctrine of necessar. ip#ication sho$#d !e app#ied in the !roader interests of s$!stantia# @$stice and
d$e process.
On 'pri# =, 2""5, respondents fi#ed their Coent on the Gerified &otion for
Reconsideration
15
ar($in( that petitionerMs #i!era# constr$ction $nd$#. !roadened the provisions of
R.'. No. +292 since the re#ationship !etween the offender and the a##e(ed victi was an essentia#
condition for the app#ication of R.'. No. +292.
On ,$#. 11, 2""5, the RTC iss$ed a Reso#$tion
19
den.in( petitionerMs
Gerified &otion for Reconsideration. The RTC reasoned that to inc#$de respondents $nder the
covera(e of R.'. No. +292 wo$#d !e a strained interpretation of the provisions of the #aw.
/ence, the present petition on a p$re *$estion of #aw, to wit>
</ET/ER OR NOT RESPONDENTS:SPOESES PER5ECTO N ,E'NIT', P'RENTS:IN:
-'< O5 S/'RIC', &'J )E INC-EDED IN T/E PETITION 5OR T/E ISSE'NCE O5 '
PROTECTIGE ORDER, IN 'CCORD'NCE <IT/ REPE)-IC 'CT NO. +292, OT/ER<ISE
INO<N 'S T/E 2'NTI:GIO-ENCE 'H'INST <O&EN 'ND T/EIR C/I-DREN 'CT O5
2""%2.
1;
Petitioner contends that R.'. No. +292 $st !e $nderstood in the #i(ht of the provisions of Section
%; of R.'. No. +292 which e6p#icit#. provides for the s$pp#etor. app#ication of the Revised Pena#
Code 1RPC3 and, accordin(#., the provision on 2conspirac.2 $nder 'rtic#e = of the RPC can !e
s$pp#etori#. app#ied to R.'. No. +292? that Steven and respondents had co$nit. of desi(n and
p$rpose in torentin( her !. (ivin( her ins$fficient financia# s$pport? harassin( and press$rin( her
to !e e@ected fro the fai#. hoe? and in repeated#. a!$sin( her ver!a##., eotiona##., enta##.
and ph.sica##.? that respondents sho$#d !e inc#$ded as indispensa!#e or necessar. parties for
cop#ete reso#$tion of the case.
On the other hand, respondents s$!it that the. are not covered !. R.'. No. +292 since Section 7
thereof e6p#icit#. provides that the offender sho$#d !e re#ated to the victi on#. !. arria(e, a
forer arria(e, or a datin( or se6$a# re#ationship? that a##e(ations on the conspirac. of respondents
re*$ire a fact$a# deterination which cannot !e done !. this Co$rt in a petition for review? that
respondents cannot !e characteri0ed as indispensa!#e or necessar. parties, since their presence in the
case is not on#. $nnecessar. !$t a#to(ether i##e(a#, considerin( the non:inc#$sion of in:#aws as
offenders $nder Section 7 of R.'. No. +292.
The Co$rt r$#es in favor of the petitioner.
Section 7 of R.'. No. +292 defines MMAvBio#ence a(ainst woen and their chi#drenMM as 2an. act or a
series of acts coitted !. an. person a(ainst a woan who is his wife, forer wife, or a(ainst a
woan with who the person has or had a se6$a# or datin( re#ationship, or with who he has a
coon chi#d, or a(ainst her chi#d whether #e(itiate or i##e(itiate, within or witho$t the fai#.
a!ode, which res$#t in or is #i8e#. to res$#t in ph.sica#, se6$a#, ps.cho#o(ica# har or s$fferin(, or
econoic a!$se inc#$din( threats of s$ch acts, !atter., assa$#t, coercion, harassent or ar!itrar.
deprivation of #i!ert..2
<hi#e the said provision provides that the offender !e re#ated or connected to the victi !.
arria(e, forer arria(e, or a se6$a# or datin( re#ationship, it does not prec#$de the app#ication of
the princip#e of conspirac. $nder the RPC.
Indeed, Section %; of R.'. No. +292 e6press#. provides for the s$pp#etor. app#ication of the RPC,
th$s>
SEC. %;. Suppletory !pplication. : 5or p$rposes of this 'ct, the Re012e% e$a3 Co%e and other
app#ica!#e #aws, sha## have 2u**3e+ory a**314a+1o$. 1Ephasis s$pp#ied3
Parenthetica##., 'rtic#e 1" of the RPC provides>
'RT. 1". Offenses not s$!@ect to the provisions of this Code. F Offenses which are or in the f$t$re
a. !e p$nisha!#e $nder specia# #aws are not s$!@ect to the provisions of this Code. T512 Co%e 25a33
be 2u**3e,e$+ary +o 2u45 3a62, u$3e22 +5e 3a++er 25ou3% 2*e41a33y *ro01%e +5e
4o$+rary. 1Ephasis s$pp#ied3
/ence, #e(a# princip#es deve#oped fro the Pena# Code a. !e app#ied in a s$pp#eentar. capacit.
to cries p$nished $nder specia# #aws, s$ch as R.'. No. +292, in which the specia# #aw is si#ent on a
partic$#ar atter.
Th$s, in Peop#e v. &oreno,
1=
the Co$rt app#ied s$pp#etori#. the provision on s$!sidiar. pena#t.
$nder 'rtic#e 7+ of the RPC to cases of vio#ations of 'ct No. 7++2, otherwise 8nown as the
2Revised &otor Gehic#e -aw,2 notin( that the specia# #aw did not contain an. provision that the
defendant co$#d !e sentenced with s$!sidiar. iprisonent in case of inso#venc..
In Peop#e v. -i <ai Che$n(,
1+
the Co$rt app#ied s$pp#etori#. the r$#es on the service of sentences
provided in 'rtic#e ;" of the RPC in favor of the acc$sed who was fo$nd ($i#t. of $#tip#e
vio#ations of R.'. No. 9%25, otherwise 8nown as the 2Dan(ero$s Dr$(s 'ct of 1+;2,2 considerin(
the #ac8 of sii#ar r$#es $nder the specia# #aw.
In Peop#e v. Chowd$r.,
2"
the Co$rt app#ied s$pp#etori#. 'rtic#es 1;, 1= and 1+ of the RPC to define
the words 2principa#,2 2accop#ices2 and 2accessories2 $nder R.'. No. ="%2, otherwise 8nown as
the 2&i(rant <or8ers and Overseas 5i#ipinos 'ct of 1++5,2 !eca$se said words were not defined
therein, a#tho$(h the specia# #aw referred to the sae ters in en$eratin( the persons #ia!#e for the
crie of i##e(a# recr$itent.
In J$ v. Peop#e,
21
the Co$rt app#ied s$pp#etori#. the provisions on s$!sidiar. iprisonent $nder
'rtic#e 7+ of the RPC to 2atas Pamansa 32.P.4 2lg. 22, otherwise 8nown as the 2)o$ncin( Chec8s
-aw,2 notin( the a!sence of an e6press provision on s$!sidiar. iprisonent in said specia# #aw.
&ost recent#., in Ladonga v. People,
22
the Co$rt app#ied s$pp#etori#. the princip#e of conspirac.
$nder 'rtic#e = of the RPC to 2.P. 2lg. 22 in the a!sence of a contrar. provision therein.
<ith ore reason, therefore, the princip#e of conspirac. $nder 'rtic#e = of the RPC a. !e app#ied
s$pp#etori#. to R.'. No. +292 !eca$se of the e6press provision of Section %; that the RPC sha## !e
s$pp#eentar. to said #aw. Th$s, (enera# provisions of the RPC, which !. their nat$re, are
necessari#. app#ica!#e, a. !e app#ied s$pp#etori#..
Th$s, the princip#e of conspirac. a. !e app#ied to R.'. No. +292. 5or once conspirac. or action in
concert to achieve a criina# desi(n is shown, the act of one is the act of a## the conspirators, and the
precise e6tent or oda#it. of participation of each of the !ecoes secondar., since a## the
conspirators are principa#s.
27
It $st !e f$rther noted that Section 5 of R.'. No. +292 e6press#. reco(ni0es that the acts of
vio#ence a(ainst woen and their chi#dren a. !e coitted !. an offender thro$(h another, th$s>
SEC. 5. !cts of 5iolence !gainst 6omen and "heir Children. : The crie of vio#ence a(ainst
woen and their chi#dren is coitted thro$(h an. of the fo##owin( acts>
6 6 6
1h3 En(a(in( in p$rposef$#, 8nowin(, or rec8#ess cond$ct, persona##. or +5rou75
a$o+5er, +5a+a#ars or ca$ses s$!stantia# eotiona# or ps.cho#o(ica# distress to the
woan or her chi#d. This sha## inc#$de, !$t not !e #iited to, the fo##owin( acts>
113 Sta#8in( or fo##owin( the woan or her chi#d in p$!#ic or private p#aces?
123 Peerin( in the window or #in(erin( o$tside the residence of the woan or her
chi#d?
173 Enterin( or reainin( in the dwe##in( or on the propert. of the woan or her
chi#d a(ainst herChis wi##?
1%3 Destro.in( the propert. and persona# !e#on(in(s or inf#ictin( har to
ania#s or pets of the woan or her chi#d? and
153 En(a(in( in an. for of harassent or vio#ence? 6 6 6. 1Ephasis s$pp#ied3
In addition, the protection order that a. !e iss$ed for the p$rpose of preventin( f$rther acts of
vio#ence a(ainst the woan or her chi#d a. inc#$de
individ$a#s other than the offendin( h$s!and, th$s>
SEC. =. Protection #rders. F 6 6 6 The protection orders that a. !e iss$ed $nder this 'ct sha##
inc#$de an., soe or a## of the fo##owin( re#iefs>
1a3 Prohi!ition of the respondent fro threatenin( to coit or coittin(, persona##.
or +5rou75 a$o+5er, an. of the acts entioned in Section 5 of this 'ct? 1avvphi1.net
1!3 Prohi!ition of the respondent fro harassin(, anno.in(, te#ephonin(, contactin( or
otherwise co$nicatin( with the petitioner, direct#. or 1$%1re4+3y? 6 6 6 1Ephasis
s$pp#ied3
5ina##., Section % of R.'. No. +292 ca##s for a #i!era# constr$ction of the #aw, th$s>
SEC. %. Construction. : This 'ct sha## !e 31bera33y 4o$2+rue% to proote the protection and safet.
of victis of vio#ence a(ainst woen and their chi#dren. 1Ephasis s$pp#ied3
It !ears ention that the intent of the stat$te is the #aw
2%
and that this intent $st !e effect$ated !.
the co$rts. In the present case, the e6press #an($a(e of R.'. No. +292 ref#ects the intent of the
#e(is#at$re for #i!era# constr$ction as wi## !est ens$re the attainent of the o!@ect of the #aw
accordin( to its tr$e intent, eanin( and spirit : the protection and safet. of victis of vio#ence
a(ainst woen and chi#dren.
Th$s, contrar. to the RTCMs prono$nceent, the a6i 7e1pressio unios est e1clusio alterius2 finds
no app#ication here. It $st !e ree!ered that this a6i is on#. an 2anci##ar. r$#e of stat$tor.
constr$ction.2 It is not of $niversa# app#ication. Neither is it conc#$sive. It sho$#d !e app#ied on#. as
a eans of discoverin( #e(is#ative intent which is not otherwise anifest and sho$#d not !e
peritted to defeat the p#ain#. indicated p$rpose of the #e(is#at$re.
25
The Co$rt notes that petitioner $nnecessari#. ar($es at (reat #en(th on the attendance of
circ$stances evidencin( the conspirac. or connivance of Steven and respondents to ca$se ver!a#,
ps.cho#o(ica# and econoic a!$ses $pon her. /owever, conspirac. is an evidentiar. atter which
sho$#d !e threshed o$t in a f$##:!#own tria# on the erits and cannot !e deterined in the present
petition since this Co$rt is not a trier of facts.
29
It is th$s preat$re for petitioner to ar($e
evidentiar. atters since this controvers. is centered on#. on the deterination of whether
respondents a. !e inc#$ded in a petition $nder R.'. No. +292. The presence or a!sence of
conspirac. can !e !est passed $pon after a tria# on the erits.
Considerin( the Co$rtMs r$#in( that the princip#e of conspirac. a. !e app#ied s$pp#etori#. to R.'.
No. +292, the Co$rt wi## no #on(er de#ve on whether respondents a. !e considered indispensa!#e
or necessar. parties. To do so wo$#d !e an e6ercise in s$perf#$it..
8HEREFORE, the instant petition is GR!NTE#. The assai#ed Reso#$tions dated &arch ;, 2""5
and ,$#. 11, 2""5 of the Re(iona# Tria# Co$rt, )ranch +%, D$e0on Cit. in Civi# Case No. D:"5:
5%579 are here!. !RTLY REVERSE# a$% SET !SI#E insofar as the disissa# of the petition
a(ainst respondents is concerned.
SO OR#ERE#.
Sharica fi#ed a Petition with Pra.er for the Iss$ance of a Teporar. Protective Order 1TPO3 a(ainst
her h$s!and Steven and her parents:in:#aw, spo$ses Pecto Jan and Raona Jan !efore the RTC.
She a##e(ed that Steven, in conspirac. with her parents:in:#aw, were ca$sin( ver!a#, ps.cho#o(ica#
and econoic a!$ses $pon her in vio#ation of Section 5, para(raphs 1e31231731%3, 1h3153, and 1i3 of
Rep$!#ic 'ct 1R.'.3 No. +292, otherwise 8nown as the O'nti:Gio#ence '(ainst <oen and Their
Chi#dren 'ct of 2""%.P
/owever, the RTC disissed the case on the (ro$nd that, !ein( the parents:in:#aw of the petitioner,
the. were not inc#$dedCcovered as respondents $nder R.'. No. +292 $nder the we##:8nown r$#e of
#aw Oe6pressio $ni$s est e6c#$sio a#teri$s.P
're parents:in:#aw covered !. R.'. No. +292Q
SEHHESTED 'NS<ER>
Jes. The SC r$#ed that Owhi#e R' +292 provides that the offender !e re#ated or connected to the
victi !. arria(e, forer arria(e, or a se6$a# or datin( re#ationship, it does not prec#$de the
app#ication of the princip#e of conspirac. $nder the RPC.
/ence, #e(a# princip#es deve#oped fro the Pena# Code a. !e app#ied in a s$pp#eentar. capacit.
to cries p$nished $nder specia# #aws, s$ch as R.'. No. +292, in which the specia# #aw is si#ent on a
partic$#ar atter.
OThe princip#e of conspirac. $nder 'rtic#e = of the RPC a. !e app#ied s$pp#etori#. to R.'. No.
+292 !eca$se of the e6press provision of Section %; that the RPC sha## !e s$pp#eentar. to said
#aw. Th$s, (enera# provisions of the RPC, which !. their nat$re, are necessari#. app#ica!#e, a. !e
app#ied s$pp#etori#..P
2Th$s, the princip#e of conspirac. a. !e app#ied to R.'. No. +292. 5or once conspirac. or action
in concert to achieve a criina# desi(n is shown, fe##ester.!#o(spot.co the act of one is the act of
a## the conspirators, and the precise e6tent or oda#it. of participation of each of the !ecoes
secondar., since a## the conspirators are principa#s.2
It !ears ention that the intent of the stat$te is the #aw and that this intent $st !e effect$ated !. the
co$rts. In the present case, the e6press #an($a(e of R.'. No. +292 ref#ects the intent of the
#e(is#at$re for #i!era# constr$ction as wi## !est ens$re the attainent of the o!@ect of the #aw
accordin( to its tr$e intent, eanin( and spirit : the protection and safet. of victis of vio#ence
a(ainst woen and chi#dren.
Th$s, contrar. to the RTCMs prono$nceent, the a6i 2e6pressio $nios est e6c#$sio a#teri$sP finds
no app#ication here. It $st !e ree!ered that this a6i is on#. an Oanci##ar. r$#e of stat$tor.
constr$ction.P It is not of $niversa# app#ication. Neither is it conc#$sive. It sho$#d !e app#ied on#. as
a eans of discoverin( #e(is#ative intent which is not otherwise anifest and sho$#d not !e
peritted to defeat the p#ain#. indicated p$rpose of the #e(is#at$re. 1Tan vs. Tan, H.R. No. 19==52,
Septe!er 7", 2""=3