Mary Christle T.

Valerio
LM-431
G.R. No. L-41958 July 20, 1982
DONALD MEAD, petitioner,
vs.
HON. MANUEL A. ARGEL in his capacity as Presiding Judge in the Court of First Instance of
Rizal, Branch XXXV and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon & Reyes & Associates for petitioner.
FACTS:
Donald Mead, the accused, being the president and general manager of the Insular Oil
Refinery Co.(INSOIL) , did then and there wilfully , unlawfully and feloniously drain or dispose
into the highway canal and/or cause permit, suffer to be drained or allow to seep into such
waterway the industrial and other waste matters discharged due to the operation of the said
corporation, which is managed by the accused , which cause pollution to the waterway, resulting
to damage to the living plants and providing hazard to health , within the vicinity. Thus
information was filed by the provincial prosecutor with a violation of Section 9, in relation to
Section 10 of Republic Act No. 3931 entitled "An Act Creating a National Water and Air Pollution
Control Commission.". Petitioner filed a motion to quash but was denied and motion for
reconsideration, was also denied, hence petition for certiorari
Issue: Whether or not the Provincial fiscal has the personality to file information against the
petitioner and if there is a violation of the Republic Act 3931.
No, under the Republic act 3931 the finding of violation of the act is solely vested to the
commission, the determination of the existence of pollution requires investigation, public
hearings and the collection of various information relating to water and atmospheric pollution,
thus requires specialized knowledge of technicality and scientific, which are not within the
competence of fiscals or those sitting in a court of justice. The provincial fiscal lacked the
authority to file the information charging the petitioner with a violation of the provisions of
Republic act 3921, there being no prior finding or determination by the commission that the
petitioner had caused pollution in any water or atmospheric air in the Philippines. The fiscal may
file such, only if the commission had made a finding or determination that the law or any of its
provision has been violated. Therefore, the filing of violation of law is , premature and
unauthorized. Thus petitioner did not cause any pollution to the waterway nor to the
atmospheric air of the Philippines.