PEOPLE VS.

RELOVA,149 SCRA 292, 6 MAR 1987

Ankash Sohail Butt

FACTS:
People of the Philippines seeks to set aside the orders of Respondent Judge Hon.
Relova quashing an information for theft filed against Mr. Opulencia on the ground of
double jeopardy and denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

On Feb.1 1975, Batangas police together with personnel of Batangas Electric Light
System, equipped with a search warrant issued by a city judge of Batangas to search
and examine the premises of the Opulencia Carpena Ice Plant owned by one Manuel
Opulencia. They discovered electric wiring devices have been installed without authority
from the city government and architecturally concealed inside the walls of the building.
Said devices are designed purposely to lower or decrease the readings
of electric current consumption in the plant’s electric meter. The case was dismissed on
the ground of prescription for the complaint was filed nine months prior to discovery
when it should be 2months prior to discovery that the act being a light felony and
prescribed the right to file in Court. On Nov 24, 1975, another case was filed against Mr.
Opulencia by the Assistant City Fiscal of Batangas for a violation of a Batangas
Ordinance regarding unauthorized electrical installations with resulting damage and
prejudice to City of Batangas in the amount of P41,062.16. Before arraignment,
Opulencia filed a motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy. The Assistant
fiscal’s claim is that it is not double jeopardy because the first offense charged against
the accused was unauthorized installation of electrical devices without the approval and
necessary authority from the City Government which was punishable by an ordinance,
where in the case was dismissed, as opposed to the second offense which is theft of
electricity which is punishable by the Revised Penal Code making it a different crime
charged against the 1st complaint against Mr.Opulencia.

Issue: Whether or Not the accused Mr. Opulencia can invoke double jeopardy as
defense to the second offense.

Held: Yes, he can invoke double jeopardy as defense for the second offense because
as tediously explained in the case of Yap vs Lutero, the bill of rights give two instances
or kinds of double jeopardy. The first would be that “No person shall be twice put in
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense and the second sentence states that “If an
act is punishable by a law or an ordinance, the conviction or acquittal shall bar to
another prosecution for the same act”. In the case at bar, it was very evident that the
charges filed against Mr. Opulencia will fall on the 2nd kind or definition of double
jeopardy wherein it contemplates double jeopardy of punishment for the same act.

It further explains that even if the offenses charged are not the same, owing that the first
charge constitutes a violation of an ordinance and the second charge was a violation
against the revised penal code, the fact that the two charges sprung from one and the
same act of conviction or acquittal under either the law or the ordinance shall bar a
prosecution under the other thus making it against the logic of double jeopardy. The fact
that Mr. Opulencia was acquitted on the first offense should bar the 2nd complaint
against him coming from the same identity as that of the 1st offense charged against
Mr.Opulencia.