SALVADOR YAPYUCO y ENRIQUEZ vs.

HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES; MARIO D. REYES, ANDRES S. REYES and VIRGILIO A. MANGUERRA vs. HONORABLE
SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES; GERVACIO B. CUNANAN, JR. and ERNESTO
PUNO vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. Nos. 120744-46; G.R. No. 122677; G.R. No. 122776. June 25, 2012

Facts:
The accused-petitioners were Salvador Yapyuco, Jr. (Yapyuco) and Generoso Cunanan, Jr. (Cunanan) and
Ernesto Puno (Puno), who were members of the Integrated National Police (INP) stationed at the
Sindalan Substation in San Fernando, Pampanga; Jose Pamintuan (Pamintuan) and Mario Reyes, who
were barangay captains of Quebiawan and Del Carmen, respectively; Ernesto Puno, Andres Reyes and
Virgilio Manguerra (Manguerra), Carlos David, Ruben Lugtu, Moises Lacson (Lacson), Renato Yu, Jaime
Pabalan (Pabalan) and Carlos David (David), who were either members of the Civil Home Defense Force
(CHDF) or civilian volunteer officers in Barangays Quebiawan, Del Carmen and Telebastagan. Allegedly,
they received information regarding a reported presence of armed NPA members in Quebiawan.
Unfortunately, a Tamaraw jeepney was openly fired at by the accused, believing those riding it to be the
reported armed NPA members. The shooting incident, which took place on April 5, 1988 in Barangay
Quebiawan, San Fernando, Pampanga, caused the death of Leodevince Licup (Licup) and injured Noel
Villanueva (Villanueva). The accused were all charged with murder, multiple attempted murder and
frustrated murder.

During the trial, the accused invoked mistake of fact as defense claiming that they honestly believed
that the passengers of the said jeepney were the reported armed NPA members.

Issue:
Whether or not mistake of fact is applicable in the present case.

Ruling:
Generally, mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal liability. Three requisites must be
established for it to be considered as mistake of fact—first, the act must have been in good faith;
second, the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful; and finally, the mistake
must be without fault or negligence on the part of the accused. However, mistake of fact is not
applicable in this case because the trajectory of the bullets and their locations showed that the accused
aimed at the passengers, i.e there was intent to shoot and kill the passengers.
 JOHN ERIC LONEY, STEVEN PAUL REID and PEDRO B. HERNANDEZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 152644; February 10, 2006

Facts:

Marcopper Mining has been storing tailings from its operations in a pit in Mt. Tapian, Marinduque. At
the base of the pit, there is a drainage tunnel leading to the Boac and Makalupnit rivers. It appears that
Marcopper had placed a concrete plug at the tunnel’s end which, in turn, caused the tailings to gush out
near the tunnel’s end. After a few few days, the pit had discharged millions of tons of tailings into the
Boac and Makalupnit rivers.

Because of this, the DOJ separately charged the petitioners with violation of 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.

Issue:

Whether all the charges filed against petitioners except one should be quashed for duplicity of charges
and only the charge for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property should stand.

Held:

There is no duplicity of charges in the case. The violations of PD 1067, PD 984, RA 7942 (mala prohibita)
cannot be absorbed to Article 365 of the RPC (mala in se). What makes mala in se a felony is the intent
or negligence, and is inherently wrong, while mala prohibita are acts that are made criminal by special
laws which were designed for a more orderly society.