G.R. No. L-45129 - People vs. Relova

On 1 February 1975, under a search warrant issued by a city judge of Batangas City, police together with Batangas Electric Light System personnel searched the Opulencia Carpena Ice Plant and Cold Storage premises.
They found electric wirings, devices, and contraptions “architecturally concealed inside the walls” designed to lower or decrease electric meter readings without city authorization.

During investigation, Manuel Opulencia admitted in a written statement that he caused the installation of such devices to reduce his electric bills.

On 24 November 1975, the Assistant City Fiscal filed an information in the City Court of Batangas City for violation of Sec. 3(b) in relation to Sec. 6(d) and Sec. 10, Article II, Title IV of Batangas City Ordinance No. 1, S. 1974, alleging damage of ₱41,062.16 to the city from November 1974 to February 1975.
Opulencia pleaded not guilty.
On 2 February 1976, he moved to dismiss the information on grounds of prescription and lack of jurisdiction over the civil indemnity. The City Court granted the motion on 6 April 1976, holding the light-felony charge prescribed two months after discovery.

On 20 April 1976, the Acting City Fiscal filed a new information in the Court of First Instance of Batangas, Branch II (Criminal Case No. 266), charging Opulencia with theft of electric power valued at ₱41,062.16 under RPC Art. 308 in relation to Art. 309(1).
Before arraignment, Opulencia filed a motion to quash on 5 May 1976, invoking his right against double jeopardy.

By order dated 16 August 1976, the CFI granted the motion to quash and dismissed the theft case.
The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on 18 November 1976.
On 1 December 1976, the Acting City Fiscal filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking to set aside the dismissal orders.

Whether the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy bars the second prosecution for theft under the RPC when the same acts were already prosecuted under a city ordinance.

Whether the dismissal of the first information on prescription grounds operates as an acquittal and thus bars subsequent prosecution for the same act.