Can't share this digest on Facebook? Here's why.
G.R. No. 152644 – 517 Phil. 408 – 482 SCRA 194 – Criminal Law – Book 1 – General Principles – Mala In Se vs Mala Prohibita
Marcopper Mining has been storing mine tailings from its operations. At the base of the pit, there is a drainage that leads to two rivers.
Marcopper was charged with violation of 3 special laws and reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property.
It is the contention of Marcopper that the violations of the special laws are absorbed in reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property.
ISSUE: Whether or not crimes mala in se are absorbed in crimes mala prohibita.
HELD: No. crimes mala in se are not absorbed in crimes mala prohibita.
Distinctions of mala in se (MI) vs mala prohibita (MP):
*my mnemonics are PEGVIMC*
1. AS TO PERFORMANCE
MI-taken into consideration
MP- not taken into consideration
2. AS TO EXECUTION
MI-taken into consideration
MP-not taken into consideration
3. AS TO GOOD FAITH
MI-it is a valid defense
MP-not a valid defense
4. AS TO VIOLATION
MI-it is a violation of the RPC
MP-it is a violation of the special laws
5. AS TO INTENT
MI-intent is material
MP-intent is not material
6. AS TO MORAL
MI- involves moral turpitude
MP- does not involve moral turpitude
7. AS TO CIRCUMSTANCES
MI- taken into consideration
MP-not taken into consideration
Case Digest provided by: Rosanna Tamayo”
