G.R. No.

152644             February 10, 2006

FACTS:
Petitioners John Eric Loney, Steven Paul Reid, and Pedro B. Hernandez are the President and Chief Executive Officer, 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 tailings3 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. It appears that Marcopper had placed a concrete plug at the tunnel’s end. On 24 March 1994,
tailings 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 Department of Justice separately charged petitioners violation of Article 91(B), 4 sub-paragraphs 5 and 6 of Presidential Decree No.
1067 or the Water Code of the Philippines ("PD 1067"),5 Section 86 of Presidential Decree No. 984 or the National Pollution Control
Decree of 1976 ("PD 984"),7 Section 1088 of Republic Act No. 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 ("RA 7942"),9 and Article 36510 of
the Revised Penal Code ("RPC") for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property.11
Petitioners moved to quash the Informations on the following grounds: (1) the Informations were "duplicitous" as the Department of
Justice charged more than one offense for a single act; (2) petitioners John Eric Loney and Steven Paul Reid were not yet officers of
Marcopper when the incident subject of the Informations took place; and (3) the Informations contain allegations which constitute legal
excuse or justification.

Issue: 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.

Held:
No Duplicity of Charges in the Present Case.Duplicity of charges simply means a single complaint or information charges more than one
offense,
Here, the prosecution charged each petitioner with four offenses, with each Information charging only one offense. Thus, petitioners
erroneously invoke duplicity of charges as a ground to quash the Informations because the filing of several charges is proper.
Court had ruled that 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.24 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. PD 1067, PD 984, RA 7942, and Article 365 of the RPC showing that in each of these laws on which petitioners
were charged, there is one essential element not required of the others.Like for the instance of In P.D. 1067 (Philippines Water Code), the
additional element to be established is the dumping of mine tailings into the Makulapnit River and the entire Boac River System without
prior permit from the authorities concerned. The gravamen of the offense here is the absence of the proper permit to dump said mine
tailings. This element is not indispensable in the prosecution for violation of PD 984 (Anti-Pollution Law), [RA] 7942 (Philippine Mining Act)
and Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code, In P.D. 984 (Anti-Pollution Law), the additional fact that must be proved is the existence of actual
pollution. The gravamen is the pollution itself and in In R.A. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act), the additional fact that must be established is the
willful violation and gross neglect on the part of the accused to abide by the terms and conditions of the Environmental Compliance
Certificate, particularly that the Marcopper should ensure the containment of run-off and silt materials from reaching the Mogpog and
Boac Rivers. t does not follow, however, that they cannot be prosecuted under the Water Code, Anti-Pollution Law and the Revised Penal
Code because violation of the Environmental Compliance Certificate is not an essential element of these laws.
On the other hand, the additional element that must be established in Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code is the lack of necessary or
adequate precaution, negligence, recklessness and imprudence on the part of the accused to prevent damage to property. This element
is not required under the previous laws. Unquestionably, it is different from dumping of mine tailings without permit, or causing pollution to
the Boac river system, much more from violation or neglect to abide by the terms of the Environmental Compliance Certificate. Moreover,
the offenses punished by special law are mal[a] prohibita in contrast with those punished by the Revised Penal Code which are mala in
se.29
Consequently, the filing of the multiple charges against petitioners, although based on the same incident, is consistent with settled
doctrine.
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
G.R. Nos. 171947-48             December 18, 2008
METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
vs.
CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY,
Facts:
Respondents Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Imus, Cavite against several
government agencies, among them the petitioners, for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay, the complaint alleged
that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards set by law, specifically Presidential Decree No. (PD)
1152 or the Philippine Environment Code.
The reckless, wholesale, accumulated and ongoing acts of omission or commission [of the defendants] resulting in the clear and present
danger to public health and in the depletion and contamination of the marine life of Manila Bay, [for which reason] ALL defendants must
be held jointly and/or solidarily liable and be collectively ordered to clean up Manila Bay and to restore its water quality to class B waters
fit for swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of contact recreation.3
In their individual causes of action, respondents alleged that the continued neglect of petitioners in abating the pollution of the Manila Bay
constitutes a violation of, among others:
(1) Respondents’ constitutional right to life, health, and a balanced ecology;
(2) The Environment Code (PD 1152);
(3) The Pollution Control Law (PD 984);
(4) The Water Code (PD 1067);
(5) The Sanitation Code (PD 856);
(6) The Illegal Disposal of Wastes Decree (PD 825);
(7) The Marine Pollution Law (PD 979);
(8) Executive Order No. 192;
(9) The Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law (Republic Act No. 6969);
(10) Civil Code provisions on nuisance and human relations;
(11) The Trust Doctrine and the Principle of Guardianship; and
(12) International Law
Respondents, as plaintiffs a quo, prayed that petitioners be ordered to clean the Manila Bay and submit to the RTC a concerted concrete
plan of action for the purpose.
Issue: Whether or Not SECTIONS 17 AND 20 OF [PD] 1152 RELATE ONLY TO THE CLEANING OF SPECIFIC POLLUTION
INCIDENTS AND DO NOT COVER CLEANING IN GENERAL
Held:
Petitioners’ obligation to perform their duties as defined by law, on one hand, and how they are to carry out such duties, on the other, are
two different concepts. While the implementation of the MMDA’s mandated tasks may entail a decision-making process, the enforcement
of the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus. the
MMDA’s duty to put up an adequate and appropriate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid disposal as well as other alternative
garbage disposal systems is ministerial, its duty being a statutory imposition.MMDA as a government agencies are enjoined, as a matter
of statutory obligation, to perform certain functions relating directly or indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and preservation
of the Manila Bay. They are precluded from choosing not to perform these duties.
Sec. 17 does not in any way state that the government agencies concerned ought to confine themselves to the containment, removal, and
cleaning operations when a specific pollution incident occurs. On the contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even in the absence of a
specific pollution incident, as long as water quality "has deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely affect its best usage." This
section, to stress, commands concerned government agencies, when appropriate, "to take such measures as may be necessary to meet
the prescribed water quality standards." In fine, the underlying duty to upgrade the quality of water is not conditional on the occurrence of
any pollution incident.
For another, a perusal of Sec. 20 of the Environment Code, as couched, indicates that it is properly applicable to a specific situation in
which the pollution is caused by polluters who fail to clean up the mess they left behind. In such instance, the concerned government
agencies shall undertake the cleanup work for the polluters’ account. Sec. 17 of the Environment Code comes into play and the specific
duties of the agencies to clean up come in even if there are no pollution incidents staring at them. Petitioners, thus, cannot plausibly
invoke and hide behind Sec. 20 of PD 1152 or Sec. 16 of RA 9275 on the pretext that their cleanup mandate depends on the happening
of a specific pollution incidentPD 1152 aims to introduce a comprehensive program of environmental protection and management. This is
better served by making Secs. 17 & 20 of general application rather than limiting them to specific pollution incidents