Loney v People
G.R. No. 152644, February 10, 2006

Facts:

The DOJ separately charged Loney and other corporate officers of Marcopper Mining Corporation (peitioners), 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.


Issues:

1. Was there duplicity of charges in the case?

2. Was the filing of several charges proper?


Held: 

1. There is no duplicity of charges in the case. 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. 

2. 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.