Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

152644 February 10, 2006

JOHN ERIC ONE!, STE"EN P#U REI$ a%& PE$RO '. HERN#N$E(, Petitioners, vs. PEOP E OF THE PHI IPPINES, Respondent. D C#RPIO, J.: The !ase This is a petition for revie" # of the Decision $ dated % Nove&ber $''# and the Resolution dated #( March $''$ of the !ourt of )ppeals. The % Nove&ber $''# Decision affir&ed the rulin* of the Re*ional Trial !ourt, +oac, Marindu,ue, +ranch -(, in a suit to ,uash Infor&ations filed a*ainst petitioners .ohn ric /one0, Steven Paul Reid, and Pedro +. Hernande1 23petitioners34. The #( March $''$ Resolution denied petitioners5 &otion for reconsideration. The 6acts Petitioners .ohn ric /one0, Steven Paul Reid, and Pedro +. Hernande1 are the President and !hief 7ecutive Officer, Senior Mana*er, and Resident Mana*er for Minin* Operations, respectivel0, of Marcopper Minin* !orporation 23Marcopper34, a corporation en*a*ed in &inin* in the province of Marindu,ue. Marcopper had been storin* tailin*s 8 fro& its operations in a pit in Mt. Tapian, Marindu,ue. )t the base of the pit ran a draina*e tunnel leadin* to the +oac and Ma9alupnit rivers. It appears that Marcopper had placed a concrete plu* at the tunnel5s end. On $( March #--(, tailin*s *ushed out of or near the tunnel5s end. In a fe" da0s, the Mt. Tapian pit had dischar*ed &illions of tons of tailin*s into the +oac and Ma9alupnit rivers. In )u*ust #--:, the Depart&ent of .ustice separatel0 char*ed petitioners in the Municipal Trial !ourt of +oac, Marindu,ue 23MT!34 "ith violation of )rticle -#2+4,( sub;para*raphs % and : of Presidential Decree No. #':< or the =ater !ode of the Philippines 23PD #':<34, % Section >: of Presidential Decree No. ->( or the National Pollution !ontrol Decree of #-<: 23PD ->(34, < Section #'>> of Republic )ct No. <-($ or the Philippine Minin* )ct of #--% 23R) <-($34, - and )rticle 8:%#' of the Revised Penal !ode 23RP!34 for Rec9less I&prudence Resultin* in Da&a*e to Propert0. ## Petitioners &oved to ,uash the Infor&ations on the follo"in* *rounds? 2#4 the Infor&ations "ere 3duplicitous3 as the Depart&ent of .ustice char*ed &ore than one offense for a sin*le act@ 2$4 petitioners .ohn ric /one0 and Steven Paul Reid "ere not 0et officers of Marcopper "hen the incident subAect of the Infor&ations too9 place@ and 284 the Infor&ations contain alle*ations "hich constitute le*al e7cuse or Austification. The Rulin* of the MT! In its .oint Order of #: .anuar0 #--< 23.oint Order34, the MT! #$ initiall0 deferred rulin* on petitioners5 &otion for lac9 of 3indubitable *round for the ,uashin* of the BICnfor&ations 7 7 7.3 The MT! scheduled petitioners5 arrai*n&ent in 6ebruar0 #--<. Ho"ever, on petitioners5 &otion, the MT! issued a !onsolidated Order on $> )pril #--< 23!onsolidated Order34, *rantin* partial reconsideration to its .oint Order and ,uashin* the Infor&ations for violation of PD #':< and PD ->(. The MT! &aintained the Infor&ations for violation of R) <-($ and )rticle 8:% of the RP!. The MT! held? BTChe #$ Infor&ations have co&&on alle*ations of pollutants pointin* to 3&ine tailin*s3 "hich "ere precipitatel0 dischar*ed into the Ma9ulapnit and +oac Rivers due to breach caused on the Tapian draina*eDtunnel due to ne*li*ence or failure to institute ade,uate &easures to prevent pollution and siltation of the Ma9ulapnit and +oac River s0ste&s, the ver0 ter& and condition re,uired to be underta9en under the nviron&ental !o&pliance !ertificate issued on )pril #, #--'. The alle*ations in the infor&ations point to sa&e set BsicC of evidence re,uired to prove the sin*le fact of pollution constitutin* violation of the =ater !ode and the Pollution /a" "hich are the sa&e set of evidence necessar0 to prove the sa&e sin*le fact of pollution, in provin* the ele&ents constitutin* !ISION

violation of the conditions of !!, issued pursuant to the Philippine Minin* )ct. In both instances, the ter&s and conditions of the nviron&ental !o&pliance !ertificate "ere alle*edl0 violated. In other "ords, the sa&e set of evidence is re,uired in provin* violations of the three 284 special la"s. )fter carefull0 anal01in* and "ei*hin* the contendin* ar*u&ents of the parties and after ta9in* into consideration the applicable la"s and Aurisprudence, the !ourt is convinced that as far as the three 284 aforesaid la"s are concerned, onl0 the Infor&ation for BvCiolation of Philippine Minin* )ct should be &aintained. In other "ords, the Infor&ations for BvCiolation of )nti;Pollution /a" 2PD ->(4 and the =ater !ode 2PD #':<4 should be dis&issedD,uashed because the ele&ents constitutin* the aforesaid violations are absorbed b0 the sa&e ele&ents "hich constitute violation of the Philippine Minin* )ct 2R) <-($4. Therefore, 7 7 7 !ri&inal !aseBC Nos. -:;((, -:;(% and -:;(: for BvCiolation of the =ater !ode@ and !ri&inal !aseBC Nos. -:;(<, -:;(> and -:;(- for BvCiolation of the )nti;Pollution /a" 7 7 7 are hereb0 DISMISS D or EF)SH D and !ri&inal !aseBC Nos. -:;%', -:;%# and -:;%$ for BvCiolation of the Philippine Minin* )ct are hereb0 retained to be tried on the &erits. The Infor&ation for BvCiolation of )rticle 8:% of the Revised Penal !ode should also be &aintained and heard in a full blo"n trial because the co&&on accusation therein is rec9less i&prudence resultin* to BsicC da&a*e to propert0. It is the da&a*e to propert0 "hich the la" punishes not the ne*li*ent act of pollutin* the "ater s0ste&. The prosecution for the BvCiolation of Philippine Minin* )ct is not a bar to the prosecution for rec9less i&prudence resultin* to BsicC da&a*e to propert0. #8 The MT! re;scheduled petitioners5 arrai*n&ent on the re&ainin* char*es on $> and $- Ma0 #--<. In the hearin* of $> Ma0 #--<, petitioners &anifested that the0 "ere "illin* to be arrai*ned on the char*e for violation of )rticle 8:% of the RP! but not on the char*e for violation of R) <-($ as the0 intended to appeal the !onsolidated Order in so far as it &aintained the Infor&ations for that offense. )fter &a9in* of record petitioners5 &anifestation, the MT! proceeded "ith the arrai*n&ent and ordered the entr0 of 3not *uilt03 pleas on the char*es for violation of R) <-($ and )rticle 8:% of the RP!. Petitioners subse,uentl0 filed a petition for certiorari "ith the Re*ional Trial !ourt, +oac, Marindu,ue, assailin* that portion of the !onsolidated Order &aintainin* the Infor&ations for violation of R) <-($. Petitioners5 petition "as raffled to +ranch -(. 6or its part, public respondent filed an ordinar0 appeal "ith the sa&e court assailin* that portion of the !onsolidated Order ,uashin* the Infor&ations for violation of PD #':< and PD ->(. Public respondent5s appeal "as raffled to +ranch 8>. On public respondent5s &otion, +ranch 8> ordered public respondent5s appeal consolidated "ith petitioners5 petition in +ranch -(. The Rulin* of +ranch -( In its Resolution#( of $' March #-->, +ranch -( *ranted public respondent5s appeal but denied petitioners5 petition. +ranch -( set aside the !onsolidated Order in so far as it ,uashed the Infor&ations for violation of PD #':< and PD ->( and ordered those char*es reinstated. +ranch -( affir&ed the !onsolidated Order in all other respects. +ranch -( held? )fter a careful perusal of the la"s concerned, this court is of the opinion that there can be no absorption b0 one offense of the three other offenses, as BtheC acts penali1ed b0 these la"s are separate and distinct fro& each other. The ele&ents of provin* each violation are not the sa&e "ith each other. !oncededl0, the sin*le act of du&pin* &ine tailin*s "hich resulted in the pollution of the Ma9ulapnit and +oac rivers "as the basis for the infor&ationBsC filed a*ainst the accused each char*in* a distinct offense. +ut it is also a "ell;established rule in this Aurisdiction that G 3) sin*le act &a0 offend a*ainst t"o or &ore entirel0 distinct and unrelated provisions of la", and if one provision re,uires proof of an additional fact or ele&ent "hich the other does not, an ac,uittal or conviction or a dis&issal of the infor&ation under one does not bar prosecution under the other. 7 7 7.3 7777 BTChe different la"s involve cannot absorb one another as the ele&ents of each cri&e are different fro& one another. ach of these la"s re,uire BsicC proof of an additional fact or ele&ent "hich the other does not althou*h the0 ste&&ed fro& a sin*le act. #% Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari "ith the !ourt of )ppeals alle*in* that +ranch -( acted "ith *rave abuse of discretion because 2#4 the Infor&ations for violation of PD #':<, PD ->(, R) <-($ and the )rticle 8:% of the RP! 3proceed fro& and are based on a sin*le act or incident of pollutin* the +oac

and Ma9alupnit rivers thru du&pin* of &ine tailin*s3 and 2$4 the duplicitous nature of the Infor&ations contravenes the rulin* in People v. Relova. #:Petitioners further contended that since the acts co&plained of in the char*es for violation of PD #':<, PD ->(, and R) <-($ are 3the ver0 sa&e acts co&plained of3 in the char*e for violation of )rticle 8:% of the RP!, the latter absorbs the for&er. Hence, petitioners should onl0 be prosecuted for violation of )rticle 8:% of the RP!. #< The Rulin* of the !ourt of )ppeals In its Decision of % Nove&ber $''#, the !ourt of )ppeals affir&ed +ranch -(5s rulin*. The appellate court held? The records of the case disclose that petitioners filed a &otion to ,uash the afore&entioned Infor&ations for bein* duplicitous in nature. Section 8 of Rule ##< of the Revised Rules of !ourt specificall0 provides the *rounds upon "hich an infor&ation &a0 be ,uashed. 7 7 7 7777 BDCuplicit0 of Infor&ations is not a&on* those included in 7 7 7 BSection 8, Rule ##<C. 7777 =e no" *o to petitioners5 clai& that the resolution of the public respondent contravened the doctrine laid do"n in People vs. Relova for bein* violative of their ri*ht a*ainst &ultiple prosecutions. In the said case, the Supre&e !ourt found the People5s ar*u&ent "ith respect to the variances in the &ens rea of the t"o offenses bein* char*ed to be correct. The !ourt, ho"ever, decided the case in the conte7t of the second sentence of )rticle IV 2$$4 of the #-<8 !onstitution 2no" under Section $# of )rticle III of the #->< !onstitution4, rather than the first sentence of the sa&e section. 7 7 7 7777 BTChe doctrine laid do"n in the Relova case does not s,uarel0 appl0 to the case at +ench since the Infor&ations filed a*ainst the petitioners are for violation of four separate and distinct la"s "hich are national in character. 7777 This !ourt fir&l0 a*rees in the public respondent5s understandin* that the la"s b0 "hich the petitioners have been Bchar*edC could not possibl0 absorb one another as the ele&ents of each cri&e are different. ach of these la"s re,uire BsicC proof of an additional fact or ele&ent "hich the other does not, althou*h the0 ste&&ed fro& a sin*le act. 7 7 7 7777 BTChis !ourt finds that there is not even the sli*htest indicia of evidence that "ould *ive rise to an0 suspicion that public respondent acted "ith *rave abuse of discretion a&ountin* to e7cess or lac9 of Aurisdiction in reversin* the Municipal Trial !ourt5s ,uashal of the Infor&ations a*ainst the petitioners for violation of P.D. #':< and P.D. ->(. This !ourt e,uall0 finds no error in the trial court5s denial of the petitioner5s &otion to ,uash R.). <-($ and )rticle 8:% of the Revised Penal !ode. #> Petitioners sou*ht reconsideration but the !ourt of )ppeals denied their &otion in its Resolution of #( March $''$. Petitioners raise the follo"in* alle*ed errors of the !ourt of )ppeals? I. TH !OFRT O6 )PP )/S !OMMITT D ) RB CV RSI+/ RROR IN M)INT)ININH TH !H)RH S 6OR VIO/)TION O6 TH PHI/IPPIN MININH )!T 2R.). <-($4 )ND R INST)TINH TH !H)RH S 6OR VIO/)TION O6 TH =)T R !OD 2P.D. #':<4 )ND PO//FTION !ONTRO/ /)= 2P.D. ->(4, !ONSID RINH TH)T? ). TH IN6ORM)TIONS 6OR VIO/)TION O6 TH =)T R !OD 2P.D. #':<4, TH PO//FTION !ONTRO/ /)= 2P.D. ->(4, TH PHI/IPPIN MININH )!T 2R.). <-($4 )ND )RTI!/ 8:% O6 TH R VIS D P N)/ !OD PRO! D 6ROM )ND )R +)S D ON ) SINH/ )!T OR IN!ID NT O6 PO//FTINH TH +O)! )ND M)IF/)PNIT RIV RS THRF DFMPINH O6 MIN T)I/INHS. +. TH PROS !FTION O6 P TITION RS 6OR DFP/I!ITOFS )ND MF/TIP/ !H)RH S !ONTR)V N S TH DO!TRIN /)ID DO=N IN P OP/ VS. R /OV), #(> S!R) $-$ B#->: TH)T 3)N )!!FS D SHOF/D NOT + H)R)SS D +J MF/TIP/ PROS !FTIONS

6OR O66 NS S =HI!H THOFHH DI66 R NT 6ROM ON )NOTH R )R NON TH / SS )!H !ONSTITFT D +J ) !OMMON S T OR OV R/)PPINH S TS O6 T !HNI!)/ / M NTS.3 II. TH !OFRT O6 )PP )/S !OMMITT D ) R V RSI+/ RROR IN RF/INH TH)T TH / M NT O6 /)!I O6 N ! SS)RJ OR )D EF)T PR !)FTION, N H/IH N! , R !I/ SSN SS )ND IMPRFD N! FND R )RTI!/ 8%: BsicC O6 TH R VIS D P N)/ !OD DO S NOT 6)// =ITHIN TH )M+IT O6 )NJ O6 TH / M NTS O6 TH P RTIN NT PROVISIONS O6 TH =)T R !OD , PO//FTION !ONTRO/ /)= )ND PHI/IPPIN MININH )!T !H)RH D )H)INST P TITION RSB.C #The Issues The petition raises these issues? 2#4 =hether all the char*es filed a*ainst petitioners e7cept one should be ,uashed for duplicit0 of char*es and onl0 the char*e for Rec9less I&prudence Resultin* in Da&a*e to Propert0 should stand@ and 2$4 =hether +ranch -(5s rulin*, as affir&ed b0 the !ourt of )ppeals, contravenes People v. Relova. The Rulin* of the !ourt The petition has no &erit. No Duplicit0 of !har*es in the Present !ase Duplicit0 of char*es si&pl0 &eans a sin*le co&plaint or infor&ation char*es &ore than one offense, as Section #8 of Rule ##'$' of the #->% Rules of !ri&inal Procedure clearl0 states? Duplicity of offense. G ) co&plaint or infor&ation &ust char*e but one offense, e7cept onl0 in those cases in "hich e7istin* la"s prescribe a sin*le punish&ent for various offenses. In short, there is duplicit0 2or &ultiplicit04 of char*es "hen a sin*le Infor&ation char*es &ore than one offense.$# Fnder Section 82e4, Rule ##<$$ of the #->% Rules of !ri&inal Procedure, duplicit0 of offenses in a sin*le infor&ation is a *round to ,uash the Infor&ation. The Rules prohibit the filin* of such Infor&ation to avoid confusin* the accused in preparin* his defense. $8 Here, ho"ever, the prosecution char*ed each petitioner "ith four offenses, "ith each Infor&ation char*in* onl0 one offense. Thus, petitioners erroneousl0 invo9e duplicit0 of char*es as a *round to ,uash the Infor&ations. On this score alone, the petition deserves outri*ht denial. The 6ilin* of Several !har*es is Proper Petitioners contend that the0 should be char*ed "ith one offense onl0 K Rec9less I&prudence Resultin* in Da&a*e to Propert0 K because 2#4 all the char*es filed a*ainst the& 3proceed fro& and are based on a sin*le act or incident of pollutin* the +oac and Ma9alupnit rivers thru du&pin* of &ine tailin*s3 and 2$4 the char*e for violation of )rticle 8:% of the RP! 3absorbs3 the other char*es since the ele&ent of 3lac9 of necessar0 or ade,uate protection, ne*li*ence, rec9lessness and i&prudence3 is co&&on a&on* the&. The contention has no &erit. )s earl0 as the start of the last centur0, this !ourt had ruled that a sin*le act or incident &i*ht offend a*ainst t"o or &ore entirel0 distinct and unrelated provisions of la" thus Austif0in* the prosecution of the accused for &ore than one offense. $( The onl0 li&it to this rule is the !onstitutional prohibition that no person shall be t"ice put in Aeopard0 of punish&ent for 3the sa&e offense.3 $% In People v. Dori,ue1,$: "e held that t"o 2or &ore4 offenses arisin* fro& the sa&e act are not 3the sa&e3 K 7 7 7 if one provision Bof la"C re,uires proof of an additional fact or ele&ent "hich the other does not, 7 7 7. Phrased else"ise, "here t"o different la"s 2or articles of the sa&e code4 define t"o cri&es, prior Aeopard0 as to one of the& is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other, althou*h both offenses arise fro& the sa&e facts, if each cri&e involves so&e i&portant act "hich is not an essential ele&ent of the other.$< 2 &phasis supplied4 Here, double Aeopard0 is not at issue because not all of its ele&ents are present. $> Ho"ever, for the li&ited purpose of controvertin* petitioners5 clai& that the0 should be char*ed "ith one offense onl0, "e ,uote "ith approval +ranch -(5s co&parative anal0sis of PD #':<, PD ->(, R) <-($, and )rticle

8:% of the RP! sho"in* that in each of these la"s on "hich petitioners "ere char*ed, there is one essential ele&ent not re,uired of the others, thus? In P.D. #':< 2Philippines =ater !ode4, the additional ele&ent to be established is the du&pin* of &ine tailin*s into the Ma9ulapnit River and the entire +oac River S0ste& "ithout prior per&it fro& the authorities concerned. The *rava&en of the offense here is the absence of the proper per&it to du&p said &ine tailin*s. This ele&ent is not indispensable in the prosecution for violation of PD ->( 2)nti; Pollution /a"4, BR)C <-($ 2Philippine Minin* )ct4 and )rt. 8:% of the Revised Penal !ode. One can be validl0 prosecuted for violatin* the =ater !ode even in the absence of actual pollution, or even BifC it has co&plied "ith the ter&s of its nviron&ental !o&pliance !ertificate, or further, even BifC it did ta9e the necessar0 precautions to prevent da&a*e to propert0. In P.D. ->( 2)nti;Pollution /a"4, the additional fact that &ust be proved is the e7istence of actual pollution. The *rava&en is the pollution itself. In the absence of an0 pollution, the accused &ust be e7onerated under this la" althou*h there "as unauthori1ed du&pin* of &ine tailin*s or lac9 of precaution on its part to prevent da&a*e to propert0. In R.). <-($ 2Philippine Minin* )ct4, the additional fact that &ust be established is the "illful violation and *ross ne*lect on the part of the accused to abide b0 the ter&s and conditions of the nviron&ental !o&pliance !ertificate, particularl0 that the Marcopper should ensure the contain&ent of run;off and silt &aterials fro& reachin* the Mo*po* and +oac Rivers. If there "as no violation or ne*lect, and that the accused satisfactoril0 proved BsicC that Marcopper had done ever0thin* to ensure contain&ent of the run;off and silt &aterials, the0 "ill not be liable. It does not follo", ho"ever, that the0 cannot be prosecuted under the =ater !ode, )nti;Pollution /a" and the Revised Penal !ode because violation of the nviron&ental !o&pliance !ertificate is not an essential ele&ent of these la"s. On the other hand, the additional ele&ent that &ust be established in )rt. 8:% of the Revised Penal !ode is the lac9 of necessar0 or ade,uate precaution, ne*li*ence, rec9lessness and i&prudence on the part of the accused to prevent da&a*e to propert0. This ele&ent is not re,uired under the previous la"s. Fn,uestionabl0, it is different fro& du&pin* of &ine tailin*s "ithout per&it, or causin* pollution to the +oac river s0ste&, &uch &ore fro& violation or ne*lect to abide b0 the ter&s of the nviron&ental !o&pliance !ertificate. Moreover, the offenses punished b0 special la" are &alBaC prohibita in contrast "ith those punished b0 the Revised Penal !ode "hich are &ala in se. $!onse,uentl0, the filin* of the &ultiple char*es a*ainst petitioners, althou*h based on the sa&e incident, is consistent "ith settled doctrine. On petitioners5 clai& that the char*e for violation of )rticle 8:% of the RP! 3absorbs3 the char*es for violation of PD #':<, PD ->(, and R) <-($, suffice it to sa0 that a &ala in se felon0 2such as Rec9less I&prudence Resultin* in Da&a*e to Propert04 cannot absorb &ala prohibita cri&es 2such as those violatin* PD #':<, PD ->(, and R) <-($4. =hat &a9es the for&er a felon0 is cri&inal intent 2dolo4 or ne*li*ence 2culpa4@ "hat &a9es the latter cri&es are the special la"s enactin* the&. People v. Relova not in Point Petitioners reiterate their contention in the !ourt of )ppeals that their prosecution contravenes this !ourt5s rulin* in People v. Relova. In particular, petitioners cite the !ourt5s state&ent in Relova that the la" see9s to prevent harass&ent of the accused b0 3&ultiple prosecutions for offenses "hich thou*h different fro& one another are nonetheless each constituted b0 a co&&on set or overlappin* sets of technical ele&ents.3 This contention is also "ithout &erit.1avvphil.net The issue in Relova is "hether the act of the +atan*as )ctin* !it0 6iscal in char*in* one Manuel Opulencia 23Opulencia34 "ith theft of electric po"er under the RP!, after the latter had been ac,uitted of violatin* a !it0 Ordinance penali1in* the unauthori1ed installation of electrical "irin*, violated Opulencia5s ri*ht a*ainst double Aeopard0. =e held that it did, not because the offenses punished b0 those t"o la"s "ere the sa&e but because the act *ivin* rise to the char*es "as punished b0 an ordinance and a national statute, thus fallin* "ithin the proscription a*ainst &ultiple prosecutions for the sa&e act under the second sentence in Section $$, )rticle IV of the #-<8 !onstitution, no" Section $#, )rticle III of the #->< !onstitution. =e held? The petitioner concludes that?

3The unauthori1ed installation punished b0 the ordinance Bof +atan*as !it0C is not the same as theft of electricit0 Bunder the Revised Penal !odeC@ that the second offense is not an attempt to co&&it the first or a frustration thereof and that the second offense is not necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information.3 The above ar*u&entB C &ade b0 the petitioner BisC of course correct. This is clear both fro& the e7press ter&s of the constitutional provision involved G "hich reads as follo"s? 3No person shall be t"ice put in Aeopard0 of punish&ent for the sa&e offense. If an act is punished b0 a la" and an ordinance, conviction or ac,uittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the sa&e act.3 7 7 7 and fro& our case la" on this point. The basic difficult0 "ith the petitioner5s position is that it &ust be e7a&ined, not under the ter&s of the first sentence of )rticle IV 2$$4 of the #-<8 !onstitution, but rather under the second sentence of the sa&e section. The first sentence of )rticle IV 2$$4 sets forth the *eneral rule? the constitutional protection a*ainst double Aeopard0 is not available "here the second prosecution is for an offense that is different fro& the offense char*ed in the first or prior prosecution, althou*h both the first and second offenses &a0 be based upon the sa&e act or set of acts. The second sentence of )rticle IV 2$$4 e&bodies an e7ception to the *eneral proposition? the constitutional protection, a*ainst double Aeopard0 is available althou*h the prior offense char*ed under an ordinance be different fro& the offense char*ed subse,uentl0 under a national statute such as the Revised Penal !ode, provided that both offenses sprin* fro& the sa&e act or set of acts. 7 7 78' 2Italici1ation in the ori*inal@ boldfacin* supplied4 Thus, Relova is no authorit0 for petitioners5 clai& a*ainst &ultiple prosecutions based on a sin*le act not onl0 because the ,uestion of double Aeopard0 is not at issue here, but also because, as the !ourt of )ppeals held, petitioners are bein* prosecuted for an act or incident punished b0 four national statutes and not b0 an ordinance and a national statute. In short, petitioners, if ever, fall under the first sentence of Section $#, )rticle III "hich prohibits &ultiple prosecution for the sa&e offense, and not, as in Relova, for offenses arisin* fro& the sa&e incident. =H R 6OR , "e D NJ the petition. =e )66IRM the Decision dated % Nove&ber $''# and the Resolution dated #( March $''$ of the !ourt of )ppeals. SO ORD R D. #NTONIO T. C#RPIO )ssociate .ustice