Reyes vs. People of the Philippines

The approval of small scale mining permits is a discretionary act of provincial governors, who may be held liable for gross inexcusable negligence under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 when they renew a permit despite knowing that the extraction limits have already been exhausted by the applicant mining company. After conviction, the grant of bail is discretionary upon the courts, and bail may be denied or cancelled upon a showing of any of the circumstances enumerated in Rule 114, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, including previous violation of bail conditions and probability of flight.

Mario Joel T. Reyes was the Governor of Palawan at the time of the alleged offense. Olympic Mines and Development Corporation (Olympic Mines) was a grantee of mining lease contracts in Narra and Española, Palawan, and had entered into a 25-year Operating Agreement with Platinum Group Metal Corporation (Platinum Group), granting the latter exclusive privilege to conduct mining operations within the Toronto Nickel Mine and Pulot Nickel Mine. Small scale mining in the Philippines is governed by Presidential Decree No. 1899, which limits annual production to 50,000 metric tons of ore, and Republic Act No. 7076 (People's Small-scale Mining Act of 1991), which defines small scale mining as relying heavily on manual labor without explosives or heavy mining equipment. The approval of small scale mining permits is vested in provincial governors under the Local Government Code and DENR Administrative Order No. 96-40.

Mario Joel T. Reyes was the Governor of Palawan. Olympic Mines and Development Corporation (Olympic Mines) was a grantee of mining lease contracts in Narra and Española, Palawan. On July 18, 2003, Olympic Mines entered into a 25-year Operating Agreement with Platinum Group Metal Corporation (Platinum Group), granting Platinum Group exclusive privilege to control, possess, manage or operate, and conduct mining operations within the Toronto Nickel Mine in Narra and Pulot Nickel Mine in Española, and authorizing Platinum Group to market or dispose minerals obtained from the areas.

On January 21, 2004, Olympic Mines and Platinum Group separately applied for small scale mining permits before the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board. Reyes approved both applications. He issued SSMP PLW No. 37 for a 19.800-hectare property in San Isidro, Narra, Palawan in favor of Olympic Mines, valid from November 4, 2004 to November 3, 2006, allowing extraction of 50,000 dry metric tons of laterite ore. Within the same duration, Platinum Group was similarly allowed, under SSMP PLW No. 39, to extract 50,000 dry metric tons of laterite ore in San Isidro, Narra and in Pulot, Española. On October 22, 2004, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources issued Olympic Mines' and Platinum Group's Environmental Compliance Certificates, which imposed a limit of 50,000 dry metric tons of nickel/ore mineral to be extracted per year.

From May 30, 2005 to April 3, 2006, Platinum Group transported, for itself and on behalf of Olympic Mines, a total of 203,399.135 dry metric tons of nickel ore extracted under their permits. On March 10, 2006, Olympic Mines applied for the renewal of SSMP PLW No. 37 before the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board. At the time of its application, Olympic Mines had already exhausted its 50,000-dry metric ton limit under SSMP PLW No. 37 and its 100,000-dry metric ton limit under its Environmental Compliance Certificates. In Resolution No. 024-2006, the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board unanimously recommended to Reyes that the application be approved. On April 6, 2006, Reyes issued SSMP PLW No. 37.1, valid from April 6, 2006 to April 5, 2008, granting Olympic Mines the right to extract 50,000 dry metric tons of laterite ore per year within the same area covered by SSMP PLW No. 37. From June 2, 2006 to July 31, 2006, Platinum Group transported, on behalf of Olympic Mines and on its own behalf, 79,330 dry metric tons of nickel ore under SSMP PLW No. 37.1 and SSMP PLW No. 39.1.

In a September 25, 2006 Order, then Environment and Natural Resources Secretary Angelo Reyes, acting on Citinickel Mines' complaint, cancelled Olympic Mines' Environmental Compliance Certificates for over-extraction of minerals. On appeal, the Office of the President reversed this Order and reinstated the cancelled Environmental Compliance Certificates on the following grounds: (1) Republic Act No. 7076 has already repealed the limit of 50,000 dry metric tons on ore extraction; (2) the condition in the Environment Compliance Certificates referred to nickel and not nickel ore; and (3) there was no proof on the amount of nickel extracted from the nickel ore.

Reyes and Andronico J. Baguyo, Head of the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board, were charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 for allegedly giving unwarranted benefits, preference, and advantage to Olympic Mines in the renewal of its Small Scale Mining Permit. As his defense, Reyes contended that there was no criminal intent or negligence on his part since he signed and approved SSMP PLW No. 37.1 based on the favorable recommendation of the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board. He also argued that over-extraction of nickel could not have been proven through Olympic Mines' Ore Transport Permits since these only showed the transport of the minerals, and that the volume in the permits referred to the combined volume of ore extracted by Olympic Mines and Platinum Group.

The Sandiganbayan found Reyes guilty but acquitted Baguyo. It found no manifest partiality since the renewal was not shown to have been granted to favor Olympic Mines alone, and no evident bad faith since the applicable laws did not expressly prohibit the renewal of small scale mining permits before they expired. However, it found gross inexcusable negligence when Reyes renewed SSMP PLW No. 37.1 during the validity of SSMP PLW No. 37, citing SR Metals, Inc. vs. Reyes, which held that the 50,000-dry metric ton limit under Presidential Decree No. 1899 was not repealed by Republic Act No. 7076. The Sandiganbayan ruled that by renewing SSMP PLW No. 37 before it expired, Reyes allowed Olympic Mines to extract nickel ore after its privilege had been exhausted for the period. It likewise found that Reyes acted with gross inexcusable negligence when Olympic Mines' agent, Platinum Group, used heavy machinery in its operations, which was not allowed in small scale mining.

Reyes filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. He then filed the Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. He also submitted an Urgent Motion to Review the Revocation of Bail assailing the Sandiganbayan's January 17, 2018 Resolution, which had revoked his bail on the grounds that he violated the conditions of his bail without justification after failing to appear before the Sandiganbayan despite a directive, and that there was a probability of flight. The Sandiganbayan had previously granted Reyes bail in the amount of P60,000.00 on August 29, 2017, right after his conviction. Reyes argued that any violation of the conditions of his bail was prior to his conviction, and that this violation was justified since he did not believe that he would be tried fairly if he stayed in the country. He also argued that he was "vindicated" when the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP. No. 132847, found no probable cause to find him liable for the murder of radio personality Gerry Ortega and dismissed the case against him.

• Good Faith Reliance on Board Recommendation: Petitioner maintained that he relied in good faith on the recommendation of the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board, it being the specialized agency with the duty and technical expertise to evaluate small scale mining permit applications, and that it is the Mines and Geosciences Bureau, not the provincial governor, which has the duty to ensure that the terms and conditions of small scale mining applications are complied with.

• Non-Retroactive Application of SR Metals: Petitioner argued that SR Metals should not have been given retroactive application when it is prejudicial to the accused, and that the Decision only shows that there has already been an issue as to how to interpret the 50,000-dry metric ton threshold, insisting that there was reasonable doubt in his case.

• Justification for Bail Violation: Petitioner argued that any violation of the conditions of his bail was prior to his conviction, and that the bail he posted on September 1, 2011 was considered cancelled; he likewise argued that this violation was justified since he did not believe that he would be tried fairly if he stayed in the country.

• Vindication in Murder Case: Petitioner argued that there was no reason to revoke his bail since the Court of Appeals had already dismissed the murder case against him, negating any possibility of flight, and that he even voluntarily surrendered when the Sandiganbayan issued its January 17, 2018 Resolution.

• Propriety of Petition for Review: Petitioner maintained that the questions raised in his Petition were proper in a petition for review on certiorari since he argued that the assailed judgment was issued by the Sandiganbayan without any legal basis.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Respondent countered that all the elements of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 were sufficiently established by the prosecution, pointing out that based on the evidence presented, Olympic Mines violated the terms and conditions of its Small Scale Mining Permit when Platinum Group extracted, on Olympic Mines' behalf, more than the 50,000-dry metric ton limit under the law.

• Gross Inexcusable Negligence: Respondent contended that the Office of the Governor of Palawan, through petitioner, acted with gross inexcusable negligence in allowing the renewal of Olympic Mines and Platinum Group's Small Scale Mining Permit despite their blatant violations of law.

• Propriety of Bail Cancellation: Respondent asserted that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it cancelled petitioner's bail, stating that petitioner had already been convicted, and that the Sandiganbayan cited two grounds for the bail's cancellation: (a) when petitioner failed to appear in court despite a directive to do so; and (b) the probability of flight.

• Conclusiveness of Factual Findings: Respondent submitted that the Sandiganbayan's factual findings are conclusive on the Supreme Court since there was no grave abuse of discretion on its part when it arrived at its conclusions.

• Gross Inexcusable Negligence: Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding petitioner Mario Joel T. Reyes guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 when he approved the renewal of Olympic Mines' Small Scale Mining Permit.

• Revocation of Bail: Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in revoking petitioner's bail on the ground of violation of the conditions of his bail and for possibility of flight.

• Gross Inexcusable Negligence: No. The Sandiganbayan did not err in finding petitioner guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. The approval of small scale mining permits is a discretionary act of provincial governors, and petitioner's renewal of Olympic Mines' permit despite the exhausted extraction limits constituted gross inexcusable negligence.

• Revocation of Bail: No. The Sandiganbayan did not err in revoking petitioner's bail. After conviction, the grant of bail is discretionary upon the courts, and the presence of two circumstances under Rule 114, Section 5 of the Rules of Court—previous violation of bail conditions and probability of flight—was established.

• Gross Inexcusable Negligence: The prosecution duly proved the first element of the offense—that petitioner was a public officer discharging official functions—as he was the Palawan Governor with the duty under the Local Government Code to adopt measures for the conservation of natural resources and to approve applications for small-scale mining permits. The Sandiganbayan found no manifest partiality since the renewal was not exclusively granted to Olympic Mines, and no evident bad faith since the law at the time did not expressly prohibit the renewal of permits before expiration. However, gross inexcusable negligence was established. Presidential Decree No. 1899 limits small scale mining production to 50,000 metric tons of ore, and this threshold was not repealed by Republic Act No. 7076, as categorically held in SR Metals, Inc. vs. Reyes. The "implied repeal" only became a controversy when Department of Justice Opinion No. 74 was issued on November 30, 2006, or after the mining activities in this case had occurred from May 2005 to April 2006. At the time the mining activities occurred, mining companies were aware of the existence of the 50,000-dry metric ton threshold, and petitioner, as the local chief executive, is presumed to have been aware of it as well. From May 30, 2005 to April 3, 2006, Platinum Group transported a total of 203,399.135 dry metric tons of nickel ore under Olympic Mines' SSMP PLW No. 37 and Platinum Group's SSMP PLW No. 39, clearly beyond the 100,000-dry metric ton threshold of the combined permits, a fact that petitioner does not dispute. Petitioner's argument that he merely relied on the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board's recommendation is unmeritorious. The Board's role is only recommendatory, and the Governor has the prerogative to review its recommendation. The duty to approve was, therefore, discretionary on petitioner, not ministerial. Negosa, petitioner's own witness, testified that the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board did not have jurisdiction over ore transport permits and would have been unaware that Olympic Mines had already exhausted its extraction limit. In contrast, petitioner, as provincial governor, signs the ore transport permits of small scale miners, and it can be presumed that he was aware of the amounts of ore being transported by Olympic Mines. Had he taken the slightest care, he would have taken the Board's recommendation together with the amounts in the Ore Transport Permits and realized that he should not have renewed Olympic Mines' Small Scale Mining Permit. The dry metric ton threshold ensures that small scale mining activities will not result in environmental damage, and petitioner's gross inexcusable negligence caused undue injury to the Province of Palawan, as it exposed the province to various environmental threats resulting from irresponsible mining. Under Section 9 of the law, the offense is punishable by imprisonment for not less than six years and one month nor more than fifteen years and perpetual disqualification from public office, and the Sandiganbayan did not err in imposing the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to eight (8) years as maximum with perpetual disqualification from public office.

• Revocation of Bail: Bail after conviction is not a matter of right; its grant or cancellation is within the sound discretion of the court. As early as 1936, in People vs. Follantes, this Court recognized that the grant of bail after conviction, not being a constitutional right, is left to the discretion of the courts. Even the 1987 Constitution mandates that bail is a matter of right in bailable offenses before conviction, but Rule 114, Section 5 of the Rules of Court provides that upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. If the penalty imposed exceeds six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution of the circumstances enumerated in Rule 114, Section 5, including that he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification, and that the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail. The presence of even one of the enumerated circumstances is sufficient cause to deny or cancel bail. Here, the factual findings show the presence of two circumstances: (1) petitioner had previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without a valid justification; and (2) he poses a flight risk if admitted to bail. When petitioner fled the country in 2011 after a warrant of arrest for murder had been filed against him, he has been a proven flight risk. He has since been acquitted of this charge by the Court of Appeals for lack of evidence, but petitioner had the propensity to evade the lawful orders of the court even before he could be convicted of murder. Since petitioner had already been convicted, the Sandiganbayan had to be more circumspect in examining the condition for petitioner's bail. As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, petitioner fled despite the existence of a Hold Departure Order, and thus, "there is indeed a distinct probability that he would once again escape considering that the [Sandiganbayan] already found him guilty and ordered his imprisonment for more than six (6) years." The Sandiganbayan did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, but rather, arrived at its decision with due consideration of the arguments presented by the prosecution. In any case, the review of the Resolution cancelling his bail has become unnecessary in view of the finding that petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

• Gross Inexcusable Negligence (Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019) — Refers to negligence characterized by the want of even the slightest care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that the governor's renewal of a small scale mining permit despite the exhausted extraction limits constituted gross inexcusable negligence, as he had the duty to review the Board's recommendation and was presumed aware of the ore transport permits.

• Discretionary Duty of Provincial Governors in Approving Small Scale Mining Permits — The approval of small scale mining permits is a discretionary act of provincial governors, not ministerial. While the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board is the technical body that recommends the approval of applications, the provincial governor still has the correlative duty to review its recommendation. The Court applied this doctrine in rejecting the governor's defense of good faith reliance on the Board's recommendation.

• Bail After Conviction is Discretionary — After conviction of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the grant of bail becomes discretionary upon the court, which may either deny or grant it. In circumstances where the penalty imposed exceeds six (6) years, the court is not precluded from cancelling the bail previously granted upon a showing by the prosecution of the circumstances enumerated in Rule 114, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. The presence of even one of the enumerated circumstances is sufficient cause to deny or cancel bail.

• Presumption of Regularity and Awareness of Law — A local chief executive is presumed to have been aware of the 50,000-dry metric ton threshold under Presidential Decree No. 1899, and as the signatory of ore transport permits, is presumed aware of the amounts of ore being transported by mining companies within the province.

• "The approval of small scale mining permits is a discretionary act of provincial governors. A provincial governor is considered to have been grossly and inexcusably negligent in renewing a small scale mining permit despite knowing that the extraction limits have already been exhausted by the applicant mining company." — This passage states the core ratio decidendi of the case, establishing the standard for gross inexcusable negligence in the context of small scale mining permit renewals.

• "The role of PMRB is only recommendatory. The PMRB's recommendation is not automatically approved by the Governor. The Governor issues the SSMP on the basis of the PMRB's recommendation. The Governor has the prerogative to review the recommendation of PMRB." — This quotation from the testimony of petitioner's own witness, Negosa, was pivotal in rejecting the defense of good faith reliance on the Board's recommendation, establishing that the governor retains a correlative duty to review.

• "After conviction of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the grant of bail becomes discretionary upon the court, which may either deny or grant it. In circumstances where the penalty imposed exceeds six (6) years, the court is not precluded from cancelling the bail previously granted upon a showing by the prosecution of the circumstances enumerated in Rule 114, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. The presence of even one (1) of the enumerated circumstances is sufficient cause to deny or cancel bail." — This passage articulates the controlling rule on bail after conviction, which the Court applied in upholding the Sandiganbayan's revocation of petitioner's bail.

• SR Metals, Inc. vs. Reyes, 735 Phil. 54 (2014) — Controlling precedent on the interpretation of the 50,000-dry metric ton threshold. The Court relied on this case to hold that Republic Act No. 7076 did not repeal the dry metric ton threshold set by Presidential Decree No. 1899, since Presidential Decree No. 1899 applies to individuals, partnerships, and corporations while Republic Act No. 7076 applies to cooperatives.

• Albert vs. Sandiganbayan, 599 Phil. 439 (2009) — Cited for the definitions of the three modes of commission under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019: manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and gross inexcusable negligence.

• People vs. Follantes, 63 Phil. 474 (1936) — Cited for the principle that the grant of bail after conviction, not being a constitutional right, is left to the discretion of the courts.

• People vs. Caderao, 117 Phil. 650 (1963) — Cited for the principle that the right to bail after conviction is not absolute, and that discretion in extending bail should be exercised with caution and only for strong reasons.

• Obosa vs. Court of Appeals, 334 Phil. 253 (1997) — Cited for the grave caution that must attend the exercise of judicial discretion in granting bail to a convicted accused, particularly where the penalty imposed exceeds six (6) years and circumstances indicate a likelihood of flight.

• Soriano vs. Marcelo, 610 Phil. 72 (2009) — Cited for the elements of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.

• Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — The provision under which petitioner was charged and convicted. It penalizes public officers who cause undue injury to any party, including the Government, or give any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of official functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.

• Section 9, Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — The penalty provision, imposing imprisonment for not less than six years and one month nor more than fifteen years and perpetual disqualification from public office.

• Section 465, Local Government Code — Imposes on the provincial governor the duty to adopt adequate measures to safeguard and conserve land, mineral, marine, forest and other resources of the province, and to protect the funds, credits, rights, and other properties of the province.

• Section 8, DENR Administrative Order No. 96-40 — Provides that local government units, in coordination with the Bureau/Regional Office(s) and subject to valid and existing mining rights, shall approve applications for small-scale mining permits.

• Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1899 — Defines small-scale mining as any single unit mining operation having an annual production of not more than 50,000 metric tons of ore, without the use of sophisticated mining equipment, with minimal investment, heavy reliance on manual labor, and owned, managed or controlled by an individual or entity qualified under existing mining laws.

• Section 3(b), Republic Act No. 7076 (People's Small-scale Mining Act of 1991) — Defines "small scale mining" as mining activities which rely heavily on manual labor using simple implements and methods and do not use explosives or heavy mining equipment.

• Rule 114, Section 5, Rules of Court — Provides that upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. If the penalty imposed exceeds six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution of enumerated circumstances, including previous escape from legal confinement, evasion of sentence, or violation of bail conditions without valid justification, and probability of flight.

• Article III, Section 13, 1987 Constitution — Provides that all persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law.

Peralta (Chairperson), Reyes, A., Jr., Hernando, and Inting, JJ., concurred.