G.R. No.
145803 June 30, 2004 th at t he p o rt io n o f t h e C o n so l id a ted Ord er
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
vs. BENJIE PABIONA, ROSELO BASALATAN,
ANTONIO SILARCA, ROBERTO METANO, and
CHRISTOPHER DELOS REYES (at large),
accused, BENJIE PABIONA, ROSELO
BASALATAN, ROBERTO METANO and ANTONIO
SILARCA, appellants.
Marlon Delim, Leon Delim and Ronald Delim guilty
beyond reasonable doubt
That on or about January 23, 1999, in the evening at Brgy.
Bila, Sison, Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with
short firearms barged-in and entered the house of Modesto
Delim and once inside with intent to kill, treachery, evident
premedidation (sic), conspiring with one another, did then
and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously grab, hold,
hogtie, gag with a piece of cloth, brought out and abduct
Modesto Delim, accused Leon Delim and Manuel Delim
stayed in the house guarded and prevented the wife and son
of Modesto Delim from helping the latter, thereafter with
abuse of superior strength stabbed and killed said Modesto
Delim, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.
Loney vs. People
G.R. No. 152644, Feb. 10, 2006
Facts:
Petitioners John Eric Loney, Steven Paul Reid and Pedro B.
Hernandez are the Pres.
and C EO, S e nio r Ma na g er, a nd Re sid e nt
Ma na ge r fo r M i ni n g Op e r atio n s, r e sp ec ti v el y,
of
Marcopper Mining Corp., a corporation engaged in mining
in the province of Marinduque.
Marcopper had been storing tailings (mine waste) from its
operations in a pit in Mt.
Tap ia n, Mari nd uq u e. At t he b a s e o f t h e p i t r a n a
d r ai na g e t u n n el lead i n g to t he B o ac a nd
Makulapnit rivers. It appears that Marcopper had placed a
concrete plug at the tunnels end.
On March 24, 1994, tailings gushed out of or near the
tunnels end. In a few days, Mt. Tapian
pit had discharged millions of tons of tailings in to the Boac
and Makalupnit rivers.
In August 1996, the DOJ
separately charged petitioners in
the MTC of Boac,
Mar i nd uq u e wi t h vio lat i o n o f Ar t. 9 1 ( B ) ,
s ub p ar a grap h s 5 a nd 6 o f P.D . No . 1 0 6 7 o r t he
Water code of the Phil., Sec. 8 of P.D. No. 984 or the
National Pollution Decree of 1976, Sec.
1 0 8 o f R . A. No . 7 9 4 2 o r t he P hi l. Mi n i n g Act o f
1 9 9 5 , a nd Art . 3 6 5 o f t h e RP C fo r R ec k le ss
Imprudence Resulting to Damage to Property.
In the Consolidated Order of MTC, granting partial
reconsideration to its Joint Order
q ua s h i n g t h e i n fo r mat io n fo r vio lat io n o f P D
1 0 6 7 a nd P D 9 8 4 . T he MT C ma i nt ai ned t he
Informations for violation of RA 7942 and Art. 365 of the
RPC. Petitioners subsequently filed
a p et it io n fo r cer tio r a r i wi t h t he RT C a s sa il i n g
maintaining the Informations for violation of RA 7942 and
the petition was raffled to Br. 94
while public respondents appeal assailing that portion of
the Consolidated Order quashing
th e I n fo . fo r vio la tio n o f P.D . 1 0 6 7 a nd P. D. 9 8 4
and t hi s ap p ea l wa s co n so l id a ted wi t h
petitioners petition.
MTC Br. 94 granted the public respondents appeal but
denied petitioners petition.
Petitioners then filed for certiorari with the Court of Appeals
alleging that Br. 94 acted with
grave abuse of discretion because 1.the Informations for
violation of PD 1067, PD 984, RA
7942 and the Art. 365 of the RPC proceeded from are
based on a single act or incident of
polluting the rivers thru dumping of mine tailings, and the
charge for violation of Art 365 of
th e RP C ab so rb s t h e o t h er c harge s si n ce t he
ele me n t o f l ac k o f n ece s sar y o r ad eq ua te
p ro tec tio n, ne gl i ge n ce, r ec kle s s ne s s a nd
i mp r ud e nc e is co m mo n a mo n g t he m, 2 . t he
duplicitous nature of the Informations contravenes the ruling
in People v. Relova. The Court
of Appeals affirmed the Br. 94 ruling.
Issue:
1 . W he t her o r no t a ll t he ch arg es fi led a gai n s t
p eti tio n ers e xc ep t o n e s ho u ld b e
quashed for duplicity of charges and only the charge for
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Damage to Property should stand
2 . wh e t her o r no t B r. 9 4 s r u li n g, a s a ffir me d b y
th e Co urt o f Ap p ea l s, co nt ra ve n es
People v. Relova.
Ruling:
The petition has no merit.
D up l ici t y o f c harg e s si m p l y mea n s a si n g le
co mp la i nt o r i n fo r mat io n c h arg e s mo re
than one offense, as Sec. 13 of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules
of Criminal Procedure. As early as
the start of the last century, the court 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 and the only limit
is the Constitutional prohibition
that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishing
for the same offense. In People vs.
Do riq ue z, t he co ur t he ld t hat t wo o r mo r e
o ffe n se s ar i si n g fo r m t h e s a me act are no t t he
same. And so, double jeopardy is not an issue because not
all its elements are present.
On petitioners claim that the charges for violation of Art.
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 to Damage
in Property) cannot absorb mala
p ro h ib i ta cr i me s ( s u c h a s t ho s e vio lat i n g P D
1 0 6 7 , P D 9 8 4 a nd R A 7 9 4 2 ). W ha t ma k es t he
fo r me r fe lo n y i s cri mi n a l i n te nt (d o lo ) o r
ne g li g e nce (c ulp a) a nd wh at ma ke s t he la tter
crimes are the special laws enacting them.
Petitioners reiterate their contention in that their prosecution
contravenes ruling in
People vs. Relova. In particular, petitioners cite the courts
statement in Relova that the law court to seek for the nullification of his
see k s to p re v e nt h ar a s s me n t o f t he acc u sed b y
mu l t ip l e p ro sec u tio n s f o r o ffe n se s wh i c h
first marriage before marrying Tina. The
tho u g h d i ffer e nt fro m o ne a no t h er ar e Regional Trial Court ruled against him
no ne t he le ss ea c h co n st it ut ed b y a co m mo n s et o r sentencing him of imprisonment of from
o ver lap p i n g set s o f te c h ni ca l e le me n t s. T h u s,
Re lo va is no a u t ho r i t y f o r p et it io ner s c lai m
6 years and 10 months to ten years, and
against multiple prosecutions based on a single act not only an amount 0f P200,000.00 for moral
because the question of double damages.
jeopardy is not an issue here, but also because, as the Court
of Appeals held, petitioners are
b ei n g p ro se c uted fo r a n act o r i nc id e n t p u ni s hed Eduardo appealed the decision to the CA
b y fo ur nat io na l sta t ut es an d no t b y a n where he alleged that he was not
ordinance and a national statute. In short, petitioners, if ever criminally liable for bigamy because
fall under the first sentence of
Sec . 2 1 , Ar t. III wh i c h p r o h ib i ts mu l tip le when he married the private
p r o se c utio n fo r t he sa me o ffe n se, a nd no t, a s i n complainant, he did so in good faith and
Relova, for offenses arising from the same incident without any malicious intent. The CA
ruled against the petitioner but with
EDUARDO P. MANUEL, petitioner, vs.
modification on the RTCs decision.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent
Imprisonment was from 2 years, months
G.R. No. 165842
and 1 day to ten years. Pecuniary reward
November 29, 2005
for moral damages was affirmed.
FACTS:
Hence, this petition.
This case is a petition for review on
certiorari of the decision of Court of
Appeals affirming the decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Baguio City,
convicting the petitioner for the crime of
ISSUES:
bigamy.
1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals
committed reversible error of law when
Eduardo P. Manuel, herein petitioner,
it ruled that petitioners wife cannot be
was first married to Rubylus Gaa on July
legally presumed dead under Article 390
18, 1975, who, according to the former,
of the Civil Code as there was no judicial
was charged with estafa in 1975 and
declaration of presumptive death as
thereafter imprisoned and was never
provided for under Article 41 of the
seen again by him after his last visit.
Family Code.
Manuel met Tina B. Gandalera in January
2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals
1996 when the latter was only 21 years
committed reversible error of law when
old. Three months after their meeting,
it affirmed the award of Php200,000.00
the two got married through a civil
as moral damages as it has no basis in
wedding in Baguio City without
fact and in law.
Gandaleras knowledge of Manuels first
marriage. In the course of their
RULINGS:
marriage, things got rocky and Gandalera
1. The petition is denied for lack of
learned that Eduardo was in fact already
merit. The petitioner is presumed to
married when he married him. She then
have acted with malice or evil intent
filed a criminal case of bigamy against
when he married the private
Eduardo Manuel. The latters defense
complainant. As a general rule, mistake
being that his declaration of single in
of fact or good faith of the accused is a
his marriage contract with Gandalera was
valid defense in a prosecution for a
done because he believed in good faith
felony by dolo; such defense negates
that his first marriage was invalid and
malice or criminal intent. However,
that he did not know that he had to go to
ignorance of the law is not an excuse
because everyone is presumed to know
the law. Ignorantia legis neminem
excusat. Where a spouse is absent for the
requisite period, the present spouse may
contract a subsequent marriage only
after securing a judgment declaring the
presumptive death of the absent spouse
to avoid being charged and convicted of
bigamy; the present spouse will have to
adduce evidence that he had a well-
founded belief that the absent spouse
was already dead. Such judgment is
proof of the good faith of the present
spouse who contracted a subsequent
marriage; thus, even if the present
spouse is later charged with bigamy if
the absentee spouse reappears, he
cannot be convicted of the crime. The
court rules against the petitioner.
2. The Court rules that the petitioners
collective acts of fraud and deceit
before, during and after his marriage
with the private complainant were
willful, deliberate and with malice and
caused injury to the latter. The Court
thus declares that the petitioners acts
are against public policy as they
undermine and subvert the family as a
social institution, good morals and the
interest and general welfare of society.
Because the private complainant was an
innocent victim of the petitioners
perfidy, she is not barred from claiming
moral damages. Considering the
attendant circumstances of the case, the
Court finds the award of P200,000.00 for
moral damages to be just and
reasonable.