RELATED TOPIC: Mala in se vs. Mala prohibita
FACTS: The DOJ separately charged petitioners 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.
Petitioners moved to quash the Informations and contended that they should be charged with one offense only — Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property — since the charge for violation of Art. 365 of the RPC “absorbs” the other charges since the element of “lack of necessary or adequate protection, negligence, recklessness, and imprudence” is common among them.
ISSUE: Whether or not the charge for violation of Art. 365 of the RPC absorbs the other charges for violations of PD 1067, PD 984, and RA 7942.
DECISION: No. The charge for violation of Art. 365 of the RPC does not absorb the other charges. It is to be noted 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 mala in se a felony is criminal intent (dolo) or negligence (culpa) and are punished by the RPC while what makes mala prohibita crimes are the special laws enacting and penalizing them.
Read the full case here.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.