Pollution
 |
Marine Pollution |
| |
Cases: |
| |
|
Pollution; Pollution defined; Fiscal
has no authority to file criminal case for pollution without determination
by National Water and Air Pollution Control Commission
MEAD
v. ARGEL
115 SCRA 256, 20 July 1982
NATURE: Petition
to review CFI order.
PONENTE: Vasquez, J.
FACTS:
Mead and Arivas, president and general manager of the Insular Oil
Refinery, Inc., were charged by the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal for
throwing their industrial waste to a waterway. Mead and Arivas filed
a Motion to Quash on the ground that the fiscal had no authority
to file the information.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the fiscal had authority to file the information.
HELD:
None. CFI judge ordered to dismiss the case.
RATIO:
The Anti-Pollution Law, RA 3931, defines pollution as “such
alteration of the physical, chemical and/or biological properties
of any water and/or atmospheric air of the Philippines, or any such
discharge of any liquid, gaseous or solid substance into any of
the waters and/or atmospheric air of the country as will or is likely
to create or render such waters and/or atmospheric air harmful or
detrimental or injurious to public health, safety or welfare, or
to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational
or other legitimate uses, or to livestock, wild animals, birds,
fish or other aquatic life.” Such a definition is very technical
that special knowledge of the matter is demanded in determining
the presence or absence of pollution. It is for this reason that
the power to determine the existence of pollution is vested in the
National Water and Air Pollution Control Commission. It is only
in cases of nuisance under the new Civil Code when the Commission’s
prior determination is not required.
NOTE: Cases
of pollution are now under the jurisdiction of Pollution Adjudication
Board, a quasi-judicial body under the Environmental Management
Bureau (EMB) of the DENR.
BACK
TO TOP
|
