Rivera v.

People
G.R. No. 166326             January 25, 2006

FACTS:
•    April 1998: Ruben Rodil stopped working as a taxi driver after a would-be rapist threatened his life.  He was
cited as a Bayaning Pilipino by ABS-CBN for saving the would-be victim.  His wife is a manicurist and they have 3
children.
•    May 2, 1998 1:00 pm: Ruben went to a nearby store to buy food. Edgardo, his neighbour, mocked him for
being jobless and dependent on his wife for support and soon a heated exchange of words ensued.

•    May 3, 1998 7:30 pm (Sunday): Ruben with his 3 year-old daughter went to the store to buy food and to look
for his wife.  Suddenly, the brothers Esmeraldo, Ismael and Edgardo emerged from their house and ganged up on
him. Esmeraldo and Ismael mauled Ruben with fist blows so he fell to the ground.

While lying on the ground, Edgardo hit Ruben 3 times with a hollow block on the parietal area (narrowly missing
the middle which is fatal) while Esmeraldo and Ismael continued mauling Ruben.
Ruben felt dizzy but managed to stand up. Ismael threw a stone at him, hitting him at the back. The policemen
on board a mobile car arrived so Esmeraldo, Ismael and Edgardo fled to their house.
•    Ruben was brought to the hospital.   The doctor declared his lacerated wound in the parietal area was slight
and superficial and would heal from 1-7 days.
•    Esmeraldo: May 3, 1998 1:00 pm, Ruben arrived at his house, banged the gate and challenged him and his
brothers to come out and fight.  When he got out, Ruben punchd him and they wrestled but Edgardo pushed
Ruben aside and Esmeraldo’s wife pulled him away and brought to their house.
•    Ismael: He tried to pacify them but Ruben pulled his hair.  Once he got free, he fled to their house and did not
see Edgardo in the scene.
•    Edgardo: May 3, 1998 1:00 pm, he was throwing garbage in front of their house when Ruben arrived.  He
quickly went inside as Ruben banged the gate, ordered him to get out and even threatened to shoot him.
Esmeraldo went out to ask what Ruben’s problem was but it led to a fist fight.  He rushed outside and pushed
Ruben who fell to the ground.  Ruben stood up, grabbed his hair and in the process, Rubn hit his head on a lamp
post.
•    RTC: Frustrated murder
•    CA: Attempted murder
•    Petitioned - They should be held criminally liable for physical injuries only since no intent to kill and even if they
had intent to kill, the prosecution failed to prove treachery

ISSUE: WON there is intent to kill on the part of the petitioner.

HELD: YES, Intent to kill was shown by the fact that the 3 brothers helped each other maul the defenseless victim,
and even after he had already fallen to the ground; that one of them even picked up a cement hollow block and
proceeded to hit the victim on the head with it 3 times; and that it was only the arrival of the policemen that made
them desist from their concerted act of trying to kill Ruben

When a wound is not sufficient to cause death, but intent to kill is evident, the crime is attempted. If the victim
dies as a result of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is presumed
GARY FANTASTICO v. ELPIDIO MALICSE, GR No. 190912, 2015-01-12

Facts:

 Elpidio Malicse, Sr. (Elpidio) was outside the house of his sister Isabelita Iguiron... when all of a sudden, he
heard Isabelita's son, Winston, throwing invectives at him. Thus, Elpidio confronted Isabelita but she also
cursed him, which prompted the former to slap the latter. Elpidio was under the influence of alcohol.
 Elpidio was eventually persuaded to go home where he drank some coffee. Thereafter, Elpidio went back
to the house of Isabelita to offer reconciliation.
 Elpidio saw the former's son, Titus Iguiron (Titus) and her son-in-law Gary Fantastico (Gary) and asked the
two where he can find their parents. Titus and Gary responded, "putang ina mo, ang kulit mo, lumayas ka,
punyeta... ka."
 In his anger with the response of Titus and Gary, Elpidio kicked the door open
 Salvador hit Elpidio on the right side of his head that forced the latter to... bow his head but Salvador
delivered a second blow that hit Elpidio on the right eyebrow.
 Gary hit Elpidio on the right side of his head with a tomahawk axe when the latter was about to go out of
the house. Elpidio tried to defend himself but was unable to take the tomahawk axe from Gary. Elpidio
walked away from Titus but Gary, still armed with the tomahawk axe and Salvador, with his arnis,
including Titus, chased him.
 Roland (Rolly) Villanueva, without any warning, hit Elpidio on the back of his head with a lead pipe which
caused the latter to fall on the ground. Elpidio begged his assailants to stop, but to no avail.
 Salvador hit him countless times on his thighs, legs and knees using... the rattan stick.
 Thereafter, a certain "Mang Gil" tried to break them off but Titus and Gary shouted at him: "Huwag
makialam, away ng mag-anak ito" and the two continued to maul Elpidio.
 Elpidio then pretended to be dead. It was then that concerned neighbors approached him and rushed him
to the emergency room of the Philippine General Hospital (PGH).

Thus, a case for Attempted Murder under Article 248, in relation to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, was filed
against Salvador Iguiron, Titus Malicse Iguiron, Saligan Malicse Iguiron, Tommy Ballesteros, Nestor Ballesteros,
Eugene Surigao and petitioners Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva.

The trial court acquitted Titus Iguiron, Saligan Iguiron and Tommy Ballesteros but found Gary Fantastico and
Rolando Villanueva guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Attempted Murder.

After their motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioners appealed the case to the CA, but the latter court
affirmed the decision of the RTC.

 Petitioners question the inclusion of the phrase “not necessarily mortal” in the allegations in the
Information. According to them, the inclusion of that phrase means that there is an absence of an intent
to kill on their part

Issues:

WON they have the intent to kill

Ruling:

YES, Intent to kill is a state of mind that the courts can discern only through external manifestations, i.e., acts
and conduct of the accused at the time of the assault and immediately thereafter.

In Rivera v. People, this Court considered the following factors to determine the presence of an... intent to kill: (1)
the means used by the malefactors; (2) the nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by the victim; (3)
the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and (4) the
circumstances under which the crime... was committed and the motives of the accused.

 This Court also considers motive and the words uttered by the offender at the time he inflicted injuries on
the victim as additional determinative factors. All of these, were proven during the trial. Needless to say,
with or without the phrase, what is important is that all the elements of attempted murder are still
alleged in the Information.
Isidro Miranda vs. People of the Philippines [G.R. No. 234528, January 23, 2019]
PONENTE: Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr.

FACTS:       
In the evening of August 14, 2011, victim Winardo Pilo (Pilo) after attending the party of his niece, he and his friend
Danilo Damaso (Damaso) left.

While on their way home, they passed by the house of Isidro Miranda and threw stones at the latter’s home.

Miranda went outside and started hacking Pilo. He hit Pilo’s right forehead. Again, Miranda tried to hit Pilo, but the
latter parried the attack with his left arm. In an attempt to stop Miranda, Damaso threw a stone at him. Thereafter,
Damaso grabbed possession of the bolo.

In his defense, Miranda admitted that he hacked Pilo with the bolo twice, but claimed that his acts were done in
self-defense. 

He narrated that he was at home with his wife and daughter when he heard a thud at their door, followed by
several other thuds and stones hurled at their house. Miranda peeped through the window and saw Pilo, throwing
stones.

He claimed that he heard Pilo challenge him to come out so that they could kill each other. According to Miranda,
Pilo approached him and hit his upper left cheek with a stone. When Pilo stretched his two arms downwards to
pick up something from the ground, Miranda suddenly hacked Pilo’s arm with his bolo, in order to defend himself
from Pilo’s oncoming attack. 

At this instance, Damaso, arrived and grappled with Miranda to get a hold of the latter’s bolo. Because of this,
Damaso likewise sustained injuries.

The RTC rendered a decision finding Miranda guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated homicide.
 Dissatisfied with the ruling, Miranda filed an appeal with the CA.
The CA affirmed the conviction of Miranda. The CA ratiocinated that Miranda’s claim of self-defense had no leg to
stand on, considering that the act of Pilo of hurling stones at the house of Miranda cannot be regarded as an
unlawful aggression that warranted the latter’s act of hacking Pilo with a bolo.
 However, the CA nonetheless appreciated the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation. Pilo’s act
of throwing stones at the house of Miranda is sufficient provocation to enrage him, or stir his anger and
obfuscate his thinking, more so, when the lives of his wife and children were placed in danger.
ISSUES:
WON there is intent to kill

RULING:
YES, in the case at bar, Miranda’s intent to kill was clearly established by the nature and number of wounds
sustained by Pilo. The records show that Miranda used a bolo measuring 1 ½ feet. The hacking wound was about
five inches long, and 1 inch deep fracturing Pilo’s skull in the parietal area. Relentless in his attack, Miranda
continuously made several thrusts against Pilo, while the latter was already sprawled on the ground. This caused
Pilo to sustain two additional wounds. These deep gashes measured four inches long by one-inch deep, and 1.5
inch long by one-inch deep in Pilo’s forearm.

In fact, these continuous attacks were stopped only when Damaso arrived and grappled with the weapon.
Undoubtedly, the manner of attack and the injuries sustained show forth a clear resolve to end Pilo’s life. Indeed,
these injuries cannot simply be brushed aside as grazing injuries, especially considering that one of which, was an
injury to the head of Pilo, which may have caused the latter’s untimely demise, if not for the timely medical
assistance.
FE ABELLA y PERPETUA, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

REYES, J.:

Facts:

 the petitioner, who at times worked as a farmer, baker and trisicad driver, was charged with frustrated
homicide

 September 6, 1998, at around 11:00 p.m., Benigno was watching television in his house. A certain Roger
Laranjo arrived and asked Benigno to pacify the petitioner, who was stirring trouble in a nearby store.
Benigno and Amelita found the petitioner fighting with Alejandro and a certain Dionisio Ybañes
(Dionisio). Benigno was able to convince the petitioner to go home. Benigno and Amelita followed suit
and along the way, they dropped by the houses of Alejandro and Dionisio to apologize for the
petitioner’s conduct.

 Benigno and Amelita were in Alejandro’s house when the petitioner arrived bringing with him two
scythes, one in each of his hands. Benigno instructed Alejandro and Dionisio to run away and the latter
two complied. The petitioner wanted to enter Alejandro’s house, but Benigno blocked his way and
asked him not to proceed.

 The petitioner then pointed the scythe, which he held in his left hand, in the direction of Benigno’s
stomach, while the scythe in the right hand was used to hack the latter’s neck once. Benigno fell to the
ground and was immediately taken to the hospital while the petitioner ran to chase Alejandro.

 The RTC found the petitioner’s defenses of alibi and denial as weak.

 The RTC awarded ₱10,000.00 as actual damages to Benigno for the medical expenses he incurred
despite the prosecution’s failure to offer receipts as evidence. The petitioner was likewise ordered to
pay ₱100,000.00 as consequential damages, but the RTC did not explicitly lay down the basis for the
award.

 The petitioner then filed an appeal before the CA

 argued that the hacking was merely accidental

 CA rendered the herein assailed Decision affirming the petitioner’s conviction for the crime of frustrated
homicide

 Here, the intent to kill was sufficiently proven by the Prosecution. The petitioner attacked Benigno with
deadly weapons, two scythes. The petitioner’s blow was directed to the neck of Benigno. The attack on
the unarmed and unsuspecting Benigno was swift and sudden. The latter had no means, and no time, to
defend himself.

 The location of the wound (on the neck) shows the nature and seriousness of the wound suffered by
Benigno. It would have caused his death, had it not been for the timely intervention of medical science. 
  the CA modified the sentence to "imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years of
prision correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor in its medium
period, as maximum." 

Issue

WON there is intent to kill on the part of the accused.

 The petitioner now wants to impress upon this Court that he had no motive to attack, much less kill
Benigno

Hence, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari

the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeks the dismissal of the instant petition.

Ruling:

YES. this Court concludes and thus agrees with the CA that the use of a scythe against Benigno’s neck was
determinative of the petitioner’s homicidal intent when the hacking blow was delivered.

In Benigno’s case, he sustained an 11-centimeter long hacking wound in the neck and a 4-cm long incised wound
in his left hand caused by the unsterile scythe used by the petitioner

Dr. Ardiente testified that "it is possible to have complications resulting from these injuries because the wounds
were extensive and they were big and they were open wounds, so there is a possibility of infections resulting from
these kinds of wounds, and the instrument used was not a sterile instrument contaminated with other things

 To successfully prosecute the crime of homicide, the following elements must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed that person without any
justifying circumstance; (3) that the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) that the
killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or
infanticide.
FERNANDO N. FERNANDEZ, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

REYES, J. JR., J.:

Facts:

 January 21, 2011 at around 1:00 a.m., Garino and an unknown companion were seated inside a jeepney
which was parked in front of Fernandez's house, when Garino saw someone go out of the gate.
 When they heard a gunshot, they immediately alighted from the jeepney, and it was then that Garino
saw that the person who fired the shot was Fernandez, though he did not know the latter's name at the
time
 As the two ran away, Fernandez fired his gun a second time, hitting Garino on his right gluteal area, or
"buttocks" in layman's terms
 Garino presented his doctor, Dr. Teresita Sanchez (Dr. Sanchez), as a witness, who testified that Garino
was near death when he was taken to the hospital, and had to undergo a second operation because his
large vessel, external iliac vein and intestines were injured.

 Fernandez, a retired police officer, vehemently denied the prosecution's version of the events and claimed
that he was sleeping with his wife at the time of the incident and was unaware of any unusual incident
outside his house at the time
 RTC rendered a Decision on April 27, 2015 convicting Fernandez of the crime of FRUSTRATED MURDER
 Fernandez filed a Notice of Appeal, The CA, however, denied Fernandez's appeal for lack of merit, and
affirmed with modification Fernandez's conviction
 Fernandez:
1. questions the veracity of his identification as the one who shot Garino, considering: a) Garino did
not know Fernandez prior to the incident; b) Garino only learned of Fernandez when he was
merely pointed to by Barcenas, who was not the companion of Garino at the time of the
incident; c) Barcenas was not presented to the witness stand to confirm the identity of
Fernandez as the person who shot Garino; and d) Garino could not have seen his perpetrator as
he was allegedly running when shot on his right gluteal area.
2. Argues that the incident took place during the wee hours of the morning, the condition of
visibility at the time of the alleged shooting would not be favorable to ascertaining the
perpetrator's identity, much less determining that Fernandez indeed was the culprit.
3. Garino merely assumed that the perpetrator was Fernandez because the jeepney, where Garino
stayed in with his unknown companion, was parked in front of Fernandez's house.
4. Fernandez states that the prosecution failed to prove that there was intent to kill on his part,
especially since Garino did not even testify that he actually saw Fernandez point a gun towards
him and fire the same
 Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), argues that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of
the crime charged.
 while it is true that Garino did not know Fernandez's name at the time of the attack, he was able to
recognize him from the salon where he worked.
 The act of firing another shot after the initial miss was an indication that Fernandez really intended to kill
Garino.

Issue: WON there is motive on the part of the petitioner

Ruling:

 NO, it was not shown that Fernandez had any motive for shooting Garino.
No other witness was presented to narrate the events of that fateful night, even though Garino had a
companion.

The condition of visibility at the time was not specified to by Garino. The incident happened after midnight, and
there was no mention that the area was illuminated sufficiently in that Garino would be able to take a good look
at his assailant.

In the case at bar, there is no indication that Fernandez and Garino knew each other beforehand.

If Fernandez wanted to end Garino's life, it would also be strange that he would not run after Garino and finish the
job, as Garino would certainly have been hobbled as a result of the wound

The Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the RTC and CA ruling and acquits Fernandez on the ground of reasonable
doubt.

People v. De Guzman, generally, the motive of the accused in a criminal case is immaterial and does not have to be
proven. Proof of the same, however, becomes relevant and essential when, as in this case, the identity of the
assailant is in question.
THE UNITED STATES,
vs.
AH CHONG

Facts:

 The defendant Ah Chong was a cook at "Officers' quarters, No. 27," Fort McKinley, Rizal Province
 Pascual Gualberto, deceased, works at the same place as a house boy or muchacho
o "Officers' quarters, No. 27" was a detached house some 40 meters from the nearest building
 No one slept in the house except the two servants who jointly occupied a small room toward the rear of
the building, the door of which opened upon a narrow porch running along the side of the building
 This porch was covered by a heavy growth of vines for its entire length and height
 The door of the room was not furnished with a permanent bolt or lock; the occupants, as a measure of
security, had attached a small hook or catch on the inside of the door, and were in the habit of reinforcing
this somewhat in secure means of fastening the door by placing against it a chair
 On the night of August 14, 1908, at about 10:00 pm, the defendant was suddenly awakened by some
trying to force open the door of the room
 He called out twice,  "Who is there?"
 He heard no answer and was convinced by the noise at the door that it was being pushed open by
someone bent upon forcing his way into the room
 The defendant warned the intruder "If you enter the room, I will kill you."
 Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the defendant struck out wildly at the
intruder (when he entered the room) who turned out to be his roommate Pascual
 Pascual ran out upon the porch heavily wounded
 Recognizing Pascual, the defendant called to his employers who slept in the next house and ran back to
his room to secure bandages to bind up Pascual's wounds
 Pascual died from the effects of the wound the following day

 The roommates appear to have been in friendly and amicable terms prior to the incident, and had an
understanding that when either returned at night, he should knock that the door and acquaint his
companion with his identity
 The defendant alleges that he kept the knife under his pillow as personal protection because of repeated
robberies in Fort McKinley
 Defendant admitted to stabbing his roommate, but said that he did it under the impression that Pascual
was "a ladron (thief)" because he forced open the door of their sleeping room, despite the defendant's
warnings
o insisted that he struck the fatal blow without any intent to do a wrongful act, in the exercise of
his lawful right of self-defense.
 Defendant was found guilty by the trial court of simple homicide, with extenuating (mitigating)
circumstances, and sentenced to 6 years and 1 day presidio mayor, the minimum penalty prescribed by
law

Issue:
WON the defendant is criminally liable

Ruling:
No, by reason of a mistake as to the facts, the defendant did an act for which he would be exempt from criminal
liability if the facts were as he supposed them to be (i.e. if Pascual was actually a thief, he will not be criminally
liable/responsible because it would be self-defense), but would constitute the crime of homicide or assassination if
the actor had known the true state of the facts (i.e. if he knew that it was actually Pascual, he would be guilty of
homicide/assassination).
 The defendant's ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith
  "The act itself does not make man guilty unless his intention were so"
 The essence of the offense is the wrongful intent, without which it cannot exist

The defendant was doing no more than exercise his legitimate right of self-defense.
He cannot be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even carelessness in falling into his
mistake as to the facts
RTC's decision is reversed. The defendant is acquitted.
Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 120744-46 25 June 2012

Ponente: Justice Diosdado M. Peralta

FACTS:

PROSECUTOR’S SIDE:

 in the evening of April 5, 1988, Villanueva, Flores, Calma, De Vera, Panlican and Licup (victims) were at
the residence of Salangsang as guests at the barrio fiesta celebrations between 5:00 and 7:30 p.m..

 As they were all intoxicated, Salangsang reminded Villanueva, who was on the wheel, to drive carefully
and watch out for potholes and open canals on the road. With Licup in the passenger seat and the rest of
his companions at the back of his Tamaraw jeepney, Villanueva allegedly proceeded at 5-10 kph with
headlights dimmed. Suddenly, as they were approaching a curve on the road, they met a burst of gunfire
and instantly, Villanueva and Licup were both wounded and bleeding profusely

 Flores recounted that after the shooting, he, unaware that Licup and Villanueva were wounded, jumped
out of the jeepney when he saw from behind them Pamintuan emerging from the yard of Narons house.
Frantic and shaken, he instantaneously introduced himself and his companions to be employees of San
Miguel Corporation but instead, Pamintuan corrected them for not stopping when flagged

 he was distracted when Villanueva cried out and told him to summon Salangsang for help as he
(Villanueva) and Licup were wounded.

 He dashed back to Salangsang’s house as instructed and, returning to the scene, he observed that
petitioner Yu was also there, and Villanueva and Licup were being loaded into a Sarao jeepney to be taken
to the St. Francis Hospital

 Flores claimed that all the accused in the case had not been known to him prior to the incident, except
for Pamintuan whom he identified to be his wifes uncle and with whom he denied having had any rift
nor with the other accused for that matter, which would have otherwise inspired ill motives. He claimed
the bullet holes on the Tamaraw jeepney were on the passenger side and that there were no other bullet
holes at the back or in any other portion of the vehicle.

YAPYUCO’S SIDE:

 in the afternoon of April 5, 1988, he and his men were investigating a physical injuries case when Yu
suddenly received a summon for police assistance from David, who supposedly was instructed by
Pamintuan, concerning a reported presence of armed NPA members in Quebiawan.

 Yapyuco allegedly called on their main station in San Fernando for reinforcement but at the time no
additional men could be dispatched.

 Hence, he decided to respond and instructed his men to put on their uniforms and bring their M-16 rifles
with them.
  he and his group met with Pamintuan who told him that he had earlier spotted four (4) men carrying long
firearms.

 Pamintuan allegedly intimated that he and barangay captain Mario Reyes of nearby Del Carmen had also
brought in a number of armed men and that there were likewise Cafgu members convened at the
residence of Naron.
 Moments later, Pamintuan announced the approach of his suspects, hence Yapyuco, Cunanan and Puno
took post in the middle of the road at the curve where the Tamaraw jeepney conveying the victims would
make an inevitable turn.
 As the jeepney came much closer, Pamintuan announced that it was the target vehicle, so he, with
Cunanan and Puno behind him, allegedly flagged it down and signaled for it to stop.
 He claimed that instead of stopping, the jeepney accelerated and swerved to its left. This allegedly
inspired him, and his fellow police officers Cunanan and Puno, to fire warning shots but the jeepney
continued pacing forward, hence they were impelled to fire at the tires thereof and instantaneously,
gunshots allegedly came bursting from the direction of Narons house directly at the subject jeepney.
 Yapyuco recalled that Flores, exclaimed that they were employees of San Miguel Corporation. Holding
their fire, they searched the vehicle and found no firearms but two injured men whom they loaded them
to jeep and brought to hospital.
 From there he and his men returned to the scene supposedly to investigate and look for the people who
fired directly at the jeepney. They found no one; the Tamaraw jeepney was likewise gone.
 Sandiganbayan: GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the offense of Homicide and
Attempted Homicide.

ISSUE: WON Mistake of fact is a valid defense in this case?

RULING: At this juncture, we find that the invocation of the concept of mistake of fact faces certain failure. In the
context of criminal law, a "mistake of fact" is a misapprehension of a fact which, if true, would have justified the
act or omission which is the subject of the prosecution. Generally, a reasonable mistake of fact is a defense to a
charge of crime where it negates the intent component of the crime. It may be a defense even if the offense
charged requires proof of only general intent. The inquiry is into the mistaken belief of the defendant, and it does
not look at all to the belief or state of mind of any other person. A proper invocation of this defense requires (a)
that the mistake be honest and reasonable; (b) that it be a matter of fact; and (c) that it negate the culpability
required to commit the crime or the existence of the mental state which the statute prescribes with respect to an
element of the offense.
JOHN ERIC LONEY, STEVEN PAUL REID and PEDRO B. HERNANDEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

 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 tailings 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 March 24, 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.

In August 1996, the Department of Justice separately charged petitioners in the Municipal Trial Court of Boac,
Marinduque (MTC) with violation of the 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.

Their contention was that the 3 other information involving violation of special penal law should already be
quashed because they are absorb by Art. 365..

ISSUE:
WON petitioner’s contention is correct

RULING:
NO. Acts mala in se cannot absorb acts mala prohibita. What makes an act malum in se is the presence of intent,
deceit or dolo or fault or culpa. On the other hand, what makes an act malum prohibitum is the fact that it’s in
violation of a special penal law. Therefore, one cannot absorb the other. So they have to be prosecuted on all 4
cases.

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.