Title
Reyes vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 237172
Decision Date
Sep 18, 2019
Reyes, as Palawan Governor, renewed a mining permit despite over-extraction, violating anti-graft laws. Convicted, bail revoked due to flight risk.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 196853)

Key Dates and Chronology of Core Events

  • July 18, 2003: Olympic Mines granted a 25-year Operating Agreement with Platinum Group.
  • Jan 21, 2004: Olympic Mines and Platinum Group applied for small scale mining permits.
  • Nov 4, 2004 – Nov 3, 2006: SSMP PLW No. 37 issued in favor of Olympic Mines (allowed extraction: 50,000 dry metric tons per year).
  • Oct 22, 2004: DENR issued Environmental Compliance Certificates (ECCs) imposing a 50,000 dry metric ton per year extraction limit.
  • May 30, 2005 – Apr 3, 2006: Platinum Group transported 203,399.135 DMT of nickel ore (combined amounts under Olympic Mines’ and Platinum Group’s permits).
  • Mar 10, 2006: Olympic Mines applied for renewal of SSMP PLW No. 37.
  • Apr 6, 2006 – Apr 5, 2008: Governor Reyes signed and issued SSMP PLW No. 37.1 (renewal), authorizing another 50,000 DMT per year.
  • Sep 25, 2006: DENR Secretary cancelled Olympic Mines’ ECC for over-extraction (later reversed on appeal to the Office of the President).
  • Aug 29, 2017: Sandiganbayan convicted Reyes of violating Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019; Baguyo acquitted. Bail granted then.
  • Jan 17 & Jan 25, 2018: Sandiganbayan revoked Reyes’ bail and denied his motion for reconsideration.
  • Subsequent petition for review to the Supreme Court was resolved with denial of the petition and affirmation of conviction and sentence.

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Constitution — Article III, Section 13 (bail before conviction is a right for bailable offenses).
  • Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Section 3(e) (proscribes causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence).
  • Presidential Decree No. 1899 (1984) and implementing Mines Administrative Order MRD-41 (1984) — defined small-scale mining and set a 50,000 metric ton annual ore production threshold.
  • Republic Act No. 7076 (1991) — People’s Small-Scale Mining Act (did not expressly retain the 50,000 DMT threshold and led to later interpretive controversy).
  • DENR Clarificatory Guidelines (Memorandum Circular No. 2007-07) — reaffirmed the 50,000 DMT annual maximum for metallic minerals under SSMPs.
  • Rules of Court, Rule 114, Section 5 — governs discretion to grant or cancel bail after conviction and enumerates circumstances justifying denial or cancellation.

Factual Background

Olympic Mines held a mining lease and, by Operating Agreement, authorized Platinum Group to operate and market minerals from the Toronto and Pulot nickel mines. Both Olympic Mines and Platinum Group received SSMPs and ECCs limiting extraction to 50,000 DMT per year. Between May 2005 and April 2006, Platinum Group transported a combined 203,399.135 DMT of nickel ore under the two companies’ permits, exceeding the combined 100,000 DMT allowed for the two-year period. Olympic Mines applied for and Governor Reyes approved renewal SSMP PLW No. 37.1 on April 6, 2006, while the prior permit remained valid through November 3, 2006. DENR later cancelled the ECCs for over-extraction, but that cancellation was reversed on appeal to the Office of the President.

Procedural History

Reyes and Baguyo were charged with violating Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019, for allegedly granting unwarranted benefits by renewing Olympic Mines’ SSMP despite violations of the prior permit. Both pleaded not guilty; trial followed. The Sandiganbayan convicted Reyes (Aug 29, 2017) and acquitted Baguyo. Reyes’ motion for reconsideration was denied (Jan 25, 2018). Reyes sought relief in the Supreme Court via Petition for Review on Certiorari and concurrently filed an Urgent Motion to Review the Resolution revoking bail. The Sandiganbayan had revoked Reyes’ bail on grounds of bail-condition violations and probability of flight.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether Governor Reyes was properly found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019, by renewing Olympic Mines’ small scale mining permit despite prior violations and exhausted extraction limits.
  2. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in revoking Reyes’ bail on the grounds that he violated bail conditions and was a flight risk.

Legal Standards and Elements of Section 3(e)

To sustain a conviction under Section 3(e), the prosecution must establish: (1) the accused is a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions; (2) the accused acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (3) the action caused undue injury to any party (including the government) or gave any private party unwarranted benefits. Each mode of culpability (manifest partiality, evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence) is distinct and sufficient by itself for conviction. Gross inexcusable negligence denotes conduct characterized by the want of even the slightest care and a conscious indifference to consequences.

Court’s Analysis — Existence of Public Office and Duty

The Court accepted that Reyes, as provincial governor, was a public officer vested with authority to approve small scale mining permits under the Local Government Code and implementing mining rules. His duties included conserving provincial natural resources and a discretionary role in approving SSMP applications in coordination with national agencies.

Court’s Analysis — Manifest Partiality and Evident Bad Faith

The Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court found no proof of manifest partiality because the renewal was not shown to have been granted exclusively to Olympic Mines or to favor that company alone. Evident bad faith was likewise not found because then-existing law did not expressly prohibit renewal of an SSMP prior to its expiration. Thus the conviction could not rest on either manifest partiality or evident bad faith.

Court’s Analysis — Gross Inexcusable Negligence and Over-Extraction

The conviction rested on gross inexcusable negligence. The Court emphasized that PD No. 1899 and MRD-41 defined small-scale mining to include an annual production cap of 50,000 metric tons of ore. The later controversy over whether RA 7076 implicitly repealed that quantitative limit was resolved in SR Metals, where the Supreme Court held that RA 7076 did not repeal the PD 1899 threshold and clarified that the 50,000 DMT limit remained applicable to small-scale mining enterprises covered by PD 1899. The Court observed that DOJ Opinion No. 74 (which opined an implied repeal) was issued after the mining activities here and that mining operators and local officials were aware of the 50,000 DMT threshold at the time. Evidence showed 203,399.135 DMT had been transported under the two SSMPs between May 2005 and April 2006, exceeding the combined allowable extraction. By renewing Olympic Mines’ SSMP while the prior permit was still subsisting and the extraction limits had been clearly exhausted, Reyes allowed continued extraction that contravened the permit limits. The Court found this conduct to constitute gross inexcusable negligence because Reyes failed to exercise the supervisory discretion required of his office to reconcile the PMRB recommendation with available Ore Transport Permits and other records showing over-extraction.

Court’s Analysis — On Reliance Upon the PMRB Recommendation

The Court rejected the contention that Reyes’ reliance on the PMRB recommendation absolved him. Testimony showed the PMRB’s recommendation is only recommendatory and that the governor retains the prerogative and duty to review and determine compliance with permit conditions. Moreover, the PMRB lacked jurisdiction over Ore Transport Permits (OTPs) at the time; the provincial governor, however, signed OTPs and could be presumed to have knowledge of transported volumes. Reyes’ failure to inquire into or reconcile transport data and permit terms before approving renewal demonstrated the want of even slight care required to avoid criminal culpability under Section 3(e).

Court’s Analysis — Environmental and Public Injury

The Court reiterated that excessive extraction inconsistent with small-scale thresholds raises substantial environmental risks (erosion, landslides, deforestation, acid drainage). By enabling extraction beyond statutory limits and failing to impose sanctions for permit violations, Reyes’ negligence caused undue injury to the Province of Palawan and its inhabitants’ interests in environmental protection and conservation.

Sentence and Penal Consequences

Under Section 9 of R.A. No. 3019, the offense is punishable by

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms