Case Summary (G.R. No. L-45129)
First Information under City Ordinance
On November 24, 1975, an information was filed in City Court against Opulencia for violating Batangas City Ordinance No. 1 (Series 1974). The charge alleged unauthorized installation of wiring and devices from November 1974 to February 1975, resulting in P41,062.16 damage to the City Government. Lampooning the mens rea element, the remedy was a fine or short imprisonment. Opulencia pleaded not guilty.
Dismissal on Prescription
Opulencia moved to dismiss for prescription and excess jurisdiction over civil indemnity. On April 6, 1976, the City Court granted the motion, holding the light felony had prescribed after two months and noting the fiscal filed nine months post-discovery.
Second Information for Theft of Electric Power
On April 20, 1976, the Acting City Fiscal filed a new information in the CFI for theft under RPC Arts. 308 and 309(1), alleging that between November 1974 and February 21, 1975, Opulencia willfully and feloniously appropriated P41,062.16 worth of electric current without consent.
Motion to Quash Based on Double Jeopardy
Before arraignment, Opulencia moved to quash, claiming double jeopardy. On August 16, 1976, Judge Relova granted dismissal, reasoning the first information—though styled under a municipal ordinance—embodied the same wrongful act and fraudulent intent to defraud the City of P41,062.16. Reconsideration was denied on November 18, 1976.
Issue: Identity of Acts vs. Identity of Offenses
Under the 1973 Constitution Art. IV, § 22, the first sentence bars punishment twice for the same offense; the second sentence bars prosecution under law and ordinance for the same act. The People argued the municipal offense (unauthorized installations) and the statutory theft (appropriation of current) involve different elements and are separate offenses.
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis
The Court distinguished between:
- Identity of Offenses—applies when both charges arise under statutes or different sections thereof; and
- Identity of Acts—applies when one charge is under an ordinance and the other under a statute, invoking the second sentence of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Relying on Yap vs. Lutero, the Court held that once acts giving rise to an ordinance violation have been prosecuted and acquitted (or extinguished by prescription), the same acts cannot sustain a subsequent prosecution under national law. Unauthorized installation and the taking of electric current were part of a single, continuous scheme driven by a common intent.
Exception and Purpose of Double Jeopardy Protection
The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against multiple prosecutions for the same act, even if the offenses are defined differently. The Court emphasized that allowing segmentation of a singl
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-45129)
Facts of the Case
- On February 1, 1975, Batangas City police, assisted by Batangas Electric Light System personnel and armed with a search warrant, inspected the Opulencia Carpena Ice Plant and Cold Storage owned by Manuel Opulencia.
- They discovered electric wiring and devices “architecturally concealed inside the walls,” designed to reduce the readings of the plant’s electric meter.
- In a written statement, Opulencia admitted installing these devices to lower his electricity consumption readings.
- On November 24, 1975, an Assistant City Fiscal filed an information in the City Court of Batangas City charging Opulencia under Batangas City Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1974, for unauthorized electrical installations and alleging P41,062.16 in damage to the city government.
- Opulencia pleaded not guilty and, on February 2, 1976, moved to dismiss the ordinance-based information on grounds of prescription and excess of the court’s jurisdiction over civil indemnity.
- On April 6, 1976, the City Court granted dismissal for prescription, acknowledging that the light felony prescribed in two months and that the information was filed more than nine months after discovery.
- On April 20, 1976, the Acting City Fiscal filed a new information in the Court of First Instance of Batangas (Branch II), docketed as Criminal Case No. 266, charging Opulencia with theft of electric power under Articles 308 and 309(1) of the Revised Penal Code, alleging the same P41,062.16 damage.
- Before arraignment, Opulencia filed a Motion to Quash (May 5, 1976), invoking the protection against double jeopardy.
- On August 16, 1976, the CFI granted the Motion to Quash and dismissed the theft information. A motion for reconsideration was denied on November 18, 1976.
- The People, by petition for certiorari and mandamus, sought review in the Supreme Court on December 1, 1976.
Procedural Posture
- City Court Information (Criminal Case No. 2385): filed Nov. 24, 1975 → dismissed Apr. 6, 1976 (prescription).
- CFI Information (Criminal Case No. 266): filed Apr. 20, 1976 → dismissed Aug. 16, 1976 (double jeopardy).
- Motion for Reconsideration denied Nov. 18, 1976.
- Peti