7/25/2019 GR NO 152644

1/13

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 152644 February 10, 2006

JOHN ERIC ONE!, STE"EN P#U REI$ a%& PE$RO '. HERN#N$E(,Petitioners,vs.PEOPE OF THE PHIIPPINES, Respondent.

D ! I S I O N

C#RPIO, J.:

The !ase

This is a petition for revie"#of the Decision$dated % Nove&ber $''# and the Resolution dated #(March $''$ of the !ourt of )ppeals. The % Nove&ber $''# Decision affir&ed the rulin* of theRe*ional Trial !ourt, +oac, Marinduue, +ranch -(, in a suit to uash Infor&ations filed a*ainstpetitioners ohn ric /one0, Steven Paul Reid, and Pedro +. Hernande1 23petitioners34. The #(March $''$ Resolution denied petitioners5 &otion for reconsideration.

The 6acts

Petitioners ohn ric /one0, Steven Paul Reid, and Pedro +. Hernande1 are the President and !hief7ecutive Officer, Senior Mana*er, and Resident Mana*er for Minin* Operations, respectivel0, ofMarcopper Minin* !orporation 23Marcopper34, a corporation en*a*ed in &inin* in the province of

Marinduue.

Marcopper had been storin* tailin*s8fro& its operations in a pit in Mt. Tapian, Marinduue. )t thebase of the pit ran a draina*e tunnel leadin* to the +oac and Ma9alupnit rivers. It appears thatMarcopper had placed a concrete plu* at the tunnel5s end. On $( March #--(, tailin*s *ushed out ofor near the tunnel5s end. In a fe" da0s, the Mt. Tapian pit had dischar*ed &illions of tons of tailin*sinto the +oac and Ma9alupnit rivers.

In )u*ust #--:, the Depart&ent of ustice separatel0 char*ed petitioners in the Municipal Trial !ourtof +oac, Marinduue 23MT!34 "ith violation of )rticle -#2+4,(sub;para*raphs % and : of PresidentialDecree No. #':< or the =ater !ode of the Philippines 23PD #'::of PresidentialDecree No. ->( or the National Pollution !ontrol Decree of #-(34,

7/25/2019 GR NO 152644

2/13

The Rulin* of the MT!

In its oint Order of #: anuar0 #--< 23oint Order34, the MT!#$initiall0 deferred rulin* on petitioners5&otion for lac9 of 3indubitable *round for the uashin* of the BICnfor&ations 7 7 7.3 The MT!scheduled petitioners5 arrai*n&ent in 6ebruar0 #--

7/25/2019 GR NO 152644

3/13

Petitioners subseuentl0 filed a petition for certiorari "ith the Re*ional Trial !ourt, +oac,Marinduue, assailin* that portion of the !onsolidated Order &aintainin* the Infor&ations forviolation of R) , +ranch -( *ranted public respondent5s appeal but deniedpetitioners5 petition. +ranch -( set aside the !onsolidated Order in so far as it uashed theInfor&ations for violation of PD #':< and PD ->( and ordered those char*es reinstated. +ranch -(affir&ed the !onsolidated Order in all other respects. +ranch -( held?

)fter a careful perusal of the la"s concerned, this court is of the opinion that there can be noabsorption b0 one offense of the three other offenses, as BtheC acts penali1ed b0 these la"s areseparate and distinct fro& each other. The ele&ents of provin* each violation are not the sa&e "ith

each other. !oncededl0, the sin*le act of du&pin* &ine tailin*s "hich resulted in the pollution of theMa9ulapnit and +oac rivers "as the basis for the infor&ationBsC filed a*ainst the accused eachchar*in* a distinct offense. +ut it is also a "ell;established rule in this Aurisdiction that G

3) sin*le act &a0 offend a*ainst t"o or &ore entirel0 distinct and unrelated provisions of la", and ifone provision reuires proof of an additional fact or ele&ent "hich the other does not, an acuittal orconviction or a dis&issal of the infor&ation under one does not bar prosecution under the other. 7 77.3

7 7 7 7

BTChe different la"s involve cannot absorb one another as the ele&ents of each cri&e are different

fro& one another. ach of these la"s reuire BsicC proof of an additional fact or ele&ent "hich theother does not althou*h the0 ste&&ed fro& a sin*le act.#%

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari "ith the !ourt of )ppeals alle*in* that +ranch -( acted "ith*rave abuse of discretion because 2#4 the Infor&ations for violation of PD #':(, R)

7/25/2019 GR NO 152644

4/13

7 7 7 7

BDCuplicit0 of Infor&ations is not a&on* those included in 7 7 7 BSection 8, Rule ##< !onstitution4, rather than the first sentence of the sa&e section. 7 7 7

7 7 7 7

BTChe doctrine laid do"n in the Relova case does not suarel0 appl0 to the case at +ench since theInfor&ations filed a*ainst the petitioners are for violation of four separate and distinct la"s "hich are

national in character.

7 7 7 7

This !ourt fir&l0 a*rees in the public respondent5s understandin* that the la"s b0 "hich thepetitioners have been Bchar*edC could not possibl0 absorb one another as the ele&ents of eachcri&e are different. ach of these la"s reuire BsicC proof of an additional fact or ele&ent "hich theother does not, althou*h the0 ste&&ed fro& a sin*le act. 7 7 7

7 7 7 7

BTChis !ourt finds that there is not even the sli*htest indicia of evidence that "ould *ive rise to an0

suspicion that public respondent acted "ith *rave abuse of discretion a&ountin* to e7cess or lac9 ofAurisdiction in reversin* the Municipal Trial !ourt5s uashal of the Infor&ations a*ainst the petitionersfor violation of P.D. #':< and P.D. ->(. This !ourt euall0 finds no error in the trial court5s denial ofthe petitioner5s &otion to uash R.).

Petitioners sou*ht reconsideration but the !ourt of )ppeals denied their &otion in its Resolution of#( March $''$.

Petitioners raise the follo"in* alle*ed errors of the !ourt of )ppeals?

I. TH !OFRT O6 )PP)/S !OMMITTD ) RBCVRSI+/ RROR IN M)INT)ININTH !H)RS 6OR VIO/)TION O6 TH PHI/IPPIN MININ )!T 2R.).

7/25/2019 GR NO 152644

5/13

+. TH PROS!FTION O6 PTITIONRS 6OR DFP/I!ITOFS )ND MF/TIP/!H)RS !ONTR)VNS TH DO!TRIN /)ID DO=N IN POP/ VS.R/OV), #(> S!R) $-$ B#->: TH)T 3)N )!!FSD SHOF/D NOT +H)R)SSD +J MF/TIP/ PROS!FTIONS 6OR O66NSS =HI!H THOFHDI66RNT 6ROM ON )NOTHR )R NONTH/SS )!H !ONSTITFTD+J ) !OMMON ST OR OVR/)PPIN STS O6 T!HNI!)/ /MNTS.3

II. TH !OFRT O6 )PP)/S !OMMITTD ) RVRSI+/ RROR IN RF/IN TH)TTH /MNT O6 /)! O6 N!SS)RJ OR )DEF)T PR!)FTION,N/IN!, R!/SSNSS )ND IMPRFDN! FNDR )RTI!/ 8%: BsicC O6 THRVISD PN)/ !OD DOS NOT 6)// =ITHIN TH )M+IT O6 )NJ O6 TH/MNTS O6 TH PRTINNT PROVISIONS O6 TH =)TR !OD, PO//FTION!ONTRO/ /)= )ND PHI/IPPIN MININ )!T !H)RD ))INST PTITIONRSB.C#-

The Issues

The petition raises these issues?

2#4 =hether all the char*es filed a*ainst petitioners e7cept one should be uashed forduplicit0 of char*es and onl0 the char*e for Rec9less I&prudence Resultin* in Da&a*e toPropert0 should stand@ and

2$4 =hether +ranch -(5s rulin*, as affir&ed b0 the !ourt of )ppeals, contravenes People v.Relova.

The Rulin* of the !ourt

The petition has no &erit.

No Duplicit0 of !har*es in the Present !ase

Duplicit0 of char*es si&pl0 &eans a sin*le co&plaint or infor&ation char*es &ore than one offense,as Section #8 of Rule ##'$'of the #->% Rules of !ri&inal Procedure clearl0 states?

Duplicity of offense. G ) co&plaint or infor&ation &ust char*e but one offense, e7cept onl0 in thosecases in "hich e7istin* la"s prescribe a sin*le punish&ent for various offenses.

In short, there is duplicit0 2or &ultiplicit04 of char*es "hen a sin*le Infor&ation char*es &ore thanone offense.$#

Fnder Section 82e4, Rule ##% Rules of !ri&inal Procedure, duplicit0 of offenses in asin*le infor&ation is a *round to uash the Infor&ation. The Rules prohibit the filin* of such

Infor&ation to avoid confusin* the accused in preparin* his defense.$8

Here, ho"ever, theprosecution char*ed each petitioner "ith four offenses, "ith each Infor&ation char*in* onl0 oneoffense. Thus, petitioners erroneousl0 invo9e duplicit0 of char*es as a *round to uash theInfor&ations. On this score alone, the petition deserves outri*ht denial.

The 6ilin* of Several !har*es is Proper

Petitioners contend that the0 should be char*ed "ith one offense onl0 K Rec9less I&prudenceResultin* in Da&a*e to Propert0 K because 2#4 all the char*es filed a*ainst the& 3proceed fro&

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#fnt23

7/25/2019 GR NO 152644

6/13

and are based on a sin*le act or incident of pollutin* the +oac and Ma9alupnit rivers thru du&pin* of&ine tailin*s3 and 2$4 the char*e for violation of )rticle 8:% of the RP! 3absorbs3 the other char*essince the ele&ent of 3lac9 of necessar0 or adeuate protection, ne*li*ence, rec9lessness andi&prudence3 is co&&on a&on* the&.

The contention has no &erit.

)s earl0 as the start of the last centur0, this !ourt had ruled that a sin*le act or incident &i*ht offenda*ainst t"o or &ore entirel0 distinct and unrelated provisions of la" thus Austif0in* the prosecution ofthe accused for &ore than one offense.$(The onl0 li&it to this rule is the !onstitutional prohibitionthat no person shall be t"ice put in Aeopard0 of punish&ent for 3the sa&e offense.3$%In People v.Doriue1,$:"e held that t"o 2or &ore4 offenses arisin* fro& the sa&e act are not 3the sa&e3 K

7 7 7 if one provision Bof la"C reuires proof of an additional fact or ele&ent "hich the other does not,7 7 7. Phrased else"ise, "here t"o different la"s 2or articles of the sa&e code4 define t"o cri&es,prior Aeopard0 as to one of the& is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other, althou*h both offensesarise fro& the sa&e facts, if each cri&e involves so&e i&portant act "hich is not an essentialele&ent of the other.$Ho"ever, for theli&ited purpose of controvertin* petitioners5 clai& that the0 should be char*ed "ith one offense onl0,"e uote "ith approval +ranch -(5s co&parative anal0sis of PD #':(, R)

7/25/2019 GR NO 152644

7/13

previous la"s. Fnuestionabl0, it is different fro& du&pin* of &ine tailin*s "ithout per&it, or causin*pollution to the +oac river s0ste&, &uch &ore fro& violation or ne*lect to abide b0 the ter&s of thenviron&ental !o&pliance !ertificate. Moreover, the offenses punished b0 special la" are &alBaCprohibita in contrast "ith those punished b0 the Revised Penal !ode "hich are &ala in se.$-

!onseuentl0, the filin* of the &ultiple char*es a*ainst petitioners, althou*h based on the sa&e

incident, is consistent "ith settled doctrine.

On petitioners5 clai& that the char*e for violation of )rticle 8:% of the RP! 3absorbs3 the char*es forviolation of PD #':(, and R)

7/25/2019 GR NO 152644

8/13

second prosecution is for an offense that is different fro& the offense char*ed in the first or priorprosecution, althou*h both the first and second offenses &a0 be based upon the sa&e act or set ofacts. The second sentence of )rticle IV 2$$4 e&bodies an e7ception to the *eneral proposition? theconstitutional protection, a*ainst double Aeopard0 is available althou*h the prior offense char*edunder an ordinance be different fro& the offense char*ed subseuentl0 under a national statute suchas the Revised Penal !ode, provided that both offenses sprin* fro& the sa&e act or set of acts. 7 7

78'

2Italici1ation in the ori*inal@ boldfacin* supplied4

Thus, Relova is no authorit0 for petitioners5 clai& a*ainst &ultiple prosecutions based on a sin*le actnot onl0 because the uestion of double Aeopard0 is not at issue here, but also because, as the!ourt of )ppeals held, petitioners are bein* prosecuted for an act or incident punished b0 fournational statutes and not b0 an ordinance and a national statute. In short, petitioners, if ever, fallunder the first sentence of Section $#, )rticle III "hich prohibits &ultiple prosecution for the sa&eoffense, and not, as in Relova, for offenses arisin* fro& the sa&e incident.

=HR6OR, "e DNJ the petition. =e )66IRM the Decision dated % Nove&ber $''# and theResolution dated #( March $''$ of the !ourt of )ppeals.

SO ORDRD.

#NTONIO T. C#RPIO)ssociate ustice

= !ON!FR?

EON#R$O #. )UISUM'ING)ssociate ustice

!hairperson

#**o+a-e Ju*-+e

$#NTE O. TING#

)sscociate ustice

) T T S T ) T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision "ere reached in consultation before the case "asassi*ned to the "riter of the opinion of the !ourt5s Division.

EON#R$O #. )UISUM'ING)ssociate ustice!hairperson

! R T I 6 I ! ) T I O N

Pursuant to Section #8, )rticle VIII of the !onstitution, and the Division !hairperson5s )ttestation, Icertif0 that the conclusions in the above Decision "ere reached in consultation before the case "asassi*ned to the "riter of the opinion of the !ourt5s Division.

#RTEMIO ". P#NG#NI'#N!hief ustice

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#fnt30

7/25/2019 GR NO 152644

9/13

Foo-%o-e*

#Fnder Rule (% of the #--< Rules of !ivil Procedure.

$Penned b0 )ssociate ustice +ernardo P. )besa&is "ith )ssociate ustices Ra&on ).+arcelona and Perlita . Tria Tirona, concurrin*.

8Mine tailin*s or &ine "aste refer to 3soil andor roc9 &aterials fro& surface or under*round&inin* operations "ith no present econo&ic value to the *enerator of the sa&e32Depart&ent of nviron&ent and Natural Resources )d&inistrative Order No. -:;(' 2#--:423DNR D)O No. -:;('34, Section %BbeC4. =aste fro& &illin* operations or &ill tailin*s isdefined as 3&aterials "hether solid, liuid or bothB,C se*re*ated fro& the ores durin*concentration&illin* operations "hich have no present econo&ic value to the *enerator ofthe sa&e3 2DNR D)O No. -:;(', Section % BauC4.

(This provision states? 3) fine e7ceedin* Three Thousand Pesos 2P8,'''.''4 but not &orethan Si7 Thousand Pesos 2P:,'''.''4 or i&prison&ent e7ceedin* three 284 0ears but not&ore than si7 2:4 0ears, or both such fine and i&prison&ent in the discretion of the !ourt,

shall be i&posed on an0 person "ho co&&its an0 of the follo"in* acts?

7 7 7 7

%. !onstructin*, "ithout prior per&ission of the *overn&ent a*enc0 concerned,"or9s that produce dan*erous or no7ious substances, or perfor&in* acts that resultin the introduction of se"a*e, industrial "aste, or an0 substance that pollutes asource of "ater suppl0.

:. Du&pin* &ine tailin*s and sedi&ents into rivers or "ater"a0s "ithoutper&ission.3

%

The Infor&ations char*in* this offense "ere doc9eted as !ri&inal !ase Nos. -:;((, -:;(%,and -:;(:. 7cept for the na&es of the accused and their respective desi*nations atMarcopper, the Infor&ations unifor&l0 alle*ed 2rollo, pp. %(;:$4?

That on or about March $(, #--:, and for so&eti&e prior and subseuent thereto, inthe &unicipalit0 of +oac, province of Marinduue, Philippines, and "ithin the

Aurisdiction of this Honorable !ourt, the above;na&ed accused, 7 7 7, did then andthere "illfull0, unla"full0 and feloniousl0 dispose, dischar*e or introduce industrial"aste, particularl0 &ine tailin*s, "ithout per&ission into the Ma9ulapnit River and theentire +oac River s0ste& "hich is a source of "ater suppl0 andor du&p or cause,per&it, suffer to be du&ped, "ithout per&ission, &ine tailin*s or other "aste &atters

dischar*ed due to breach caused on its Tapian draina*e pittunnel, thus causin*pollution and siltation in the Ma9ulapnit River and the entire +oac River s0ste& "hichbeca&e a dead river, resultin* to da&a*e andor destruction of livin* or*anis&s, li9efish or other auatic life in the vicinit0, and to health and propert0 in the sa&e vicinit0.

:This provision states? 3Prohibitions. K No person shall thro", run, drain, or other"isedispose into an0 of the "ater, air andor land resources of the Philippines, or cause, per&it,suffer to be thro"n, run, drain, allo" to seep or other"ise dispose thereto an0 or*anic or

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#rnt6

7/25/2019 GR NO 152644

10/13

inor*anic &atter or an0 substance in *aseous or liuid for& that shall cause pollutionthereof.

No person shall perfor& an0 of the follo"in* activities "ithout first securin* a per&itfro& the BNational Pollution !ontrolC !o&&ission for the dischar*e of all industrial"astes and other "astes "hich could cause pollution?

2#4 the construction, installation, &odification or operation of an0 se"a*e"or9s or an0 e7tension or addition thereto@

2$4 the increase in volu&e or stren*th of an0 "astes in e7cess of theper&issive dischar*e specified under an0 e7istin* per&it@

284 the construction, installation or operation of an0 industrial or co&&ercialestablish&ents or an0 e7tension or &odification thereof or addition thereto,the operation of "hich "ould cause an increase in the dischar*e of "astedirectl0 into the "ater, air andor land resources of the Philippines or "ouldother"ise alter their ph0sical, che&ical or biolo*ical properties in an0 &anner

not alread0 la"full0 authori1ed.3

7/25/2019 GR NO 152644

11/13

there "illfull0, unla"full0 and feloniousl0 drain or other"ise disposedischar*e into theMa9ulapnit River and the entire +oac River s0ste& andor cause, per&it, suffer to bedrained or allo" to seep into such river s0ste&, &ine tailin*s or other "aste &attersdischar*ed due to breach caused on its Tapian draina*e tunnel for his failure toinstitute adeuate &easures, thus causin* pollution and siltation in the entire +oacRiver S0ste& thus, "illfull0 violatin* or *rossl0 ne*lectin* to abide b0 the ter&s and

conditions of the nviron&ental !o&pliance !ertificate 2!!4 issued to BMarcopperMinin* !Corporation 7 7 7, particularl0 that the Marcopper Minin* !orporation shouldensure the contain&ent of run;off and silt &aterials fro& reachin* the Ma*po* and+oac Rivers, resultin* to da&a*e andor destruction of livin* or*anis&s, li9e fish andother auatic life in the vicinit0, and to health and propert0 in the sa&e vicinit0.

#'This provision states, in part? 3I&prudence and ne*li*ence. K )n0 person "ho, b0 rec9lessi&prudence, shall co&&it an0 act "hich, had it been intentional, "ould constitute a *ravefelon0, shall suffer the penalt0 of arresto &a0or in its &a7i&u& period to prision correccionalin its &ediu& period@ if it "ould have constituted a less *rave felon0, the penalt0 of arresto&a0or in its &ini&u& and &ediu& periods shall be i&posed@ if it "ould have constituted ali*ht felon0, the penalt0 of arresto &enor in its &a7i&u& period shall be i&posed.

7 7 7 7

=hen the e7ecution of the act covered b0 this article shall have onl0 resulted inda&a*e to the propert0 of another, the offender shall be punished b0 a fine ran*in*fro& an a&ount eual to the value of said da&a*es to three ti&es such value, but"hich shall in no case be less than t"ent0;five pesos.

7 7 7 7

Rec9less i&prudence consists in voluntaril0, but "ithout &alice, doin* or failin* to doan act fro& "hich &aterial da&a*e results b0 reason of ine7cusable lac9 ofprecaution on the part of the person perfor&in* or failin* to perfor& such act, ta9in*into consideration his e&plo0&ent or occupation, de*ree of intelli*ence, ph0sicalcondition and other circu&stances re*ardin* persons, ti&e and place.3

##The Infor&ations under this char*e "ere doc9eted as !ri&inal !ase Nos. -:;%8, -:;%(,and -:;%%. 7cept for the na&es of the accused and their respective desi*nations atMarcopper, the Infor&ations unifor&l0 alle*ed 2rollo, pp. >#;-#4?

That on or about March $(, #--:, and for so&eti&e prior and subseuent thereto, inthe &unicipalit0 of +oac, province of Marinduue, Philippines, and "ithin the

Aurisdiction of this Honorable !ourt, the above;na&ed accused, 7 7 7, did then andthere ne*li*entl0, i&prudentl0, unla"full0 and feloniousl0 drain or other"isedisposedischar*e into the Ma9ulapnit River or +oac River s0ste& andor cause,

per&it, suffer to be drained or allo" to seep into such river s0ste&"ater"a0, its &inetailin*s due to breach caused on the Tapian draina*e pittunnel of the BMarcopperMinin* !Corporation so &ana*ed and operated b0 said accused, in a ne*li*ent,rec9less and i&prudent &anner, "ithout due re*ard and in *ross violation of theconditions set forth in the nviron&ental !o&pliance !ertificate issued b0 thenviron&ental Mana*e&ent +ureau to the said corporation on )pril :, #--:, and theaccused, 7 7 7, did not ta9e the necessar0 or adeuate precaution to preventda&a*e to propert0 thus causin* b0 such carelessness and i&prudence saidcorporation operated b0 hi& to dischar*e &ine tailin*s into the Ma9ulapnit River at

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#rnt11

7/25/2019 GR NO 152644

12/13

the rate of % to #' cubic &eters per second then resultin* to da&a*e andordestruction of livin* or*anis&s, li9e fish or other auatic life in the said river s0ste&and "hich also affected a*ricultural products, the rehabilitation and restoration of"hich "ill cost the *overn&ent the appro7i&ate su& of not lessthan P%',''','''.''.

#$Presided b0 ud*e !elso De esus Loleta.

#8Rollo, pp. #$';#$$.

#(Penned b0 ud*e Rodolfo +. Di&aano.

#%Rollo, pp. $'$;$'8.

#:No. /;(%#$-, : March #-> S!R) $-$.

#.

#>Rollo, pp. (8, (%;(:, (>, %' 2internal citations o&itted4.

#-Id., pp. #.

$'Substantiall0 reiterated in Section #8, Rule ##' of the Revised Rules of !ri&inalProcedure, effective # Dece&ber $''' 23Revised Rules34.

$#See Reodica v. !), 8%( Phil. -' 2#-->4.

$$This provisions states? 3rounds. K The accused &a0 &ove to uash the co&plaint orinfor&ation on an0 of the follo"in* *rounds?

7 7 7 7

2e4 That &ore than one offense is char*ed e7cept in those cases in "hich e7istin*la"s prescribe a sin*le punish&ent for various offensesB.C3 This is substantiall0reiterated in Section 82f4, Rule ##< of the Revised Rules.

$8People v. 6errer, #'# Phil. $8( 2#-%;4.

$

7/25/2019 GR NO 152644

13/13

for the accused to clai& protection a*ainst double Aeopard0? 2#4 a valid co&plaint orInfor&ation or other for&al char*e sufficient in for& and substance to sustain a conviction,2$4 a co&petent court@ 284 the defendant had pleaded to the char*e@ 2(4 the defendant hadbeen convicted, or acuitted, or the case a*ainst hi& dis&issed or other"ise ter&inated"ithout his e7press consent@ 2%4 the second offense char*ed is the sa&e as the first, or is anatte&pt to co&&it the sa&e or a frustration thereof, or that the second offense necessaril0

includes or is necessaril0 included in the offense or infor&ation. Onl0 the first three ele&entsare present in this case.

$-Rollo, pp. $'8;$'%.

8'Supranote #: at 8'#;8'$.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_152644_2006.html#rnt30