FACTS:
People of the Philippines seek to set aside the orders of the respondent Judge quashing an information for theft filed against private respondent Manuel Opulencia on the ground of double jeopardy and denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Members of the Batangas City Police equipped with a search warrant searched and examined the premises of the Opulencia Carpena Ice Plant and Cold Storage owned and operated by the private respondent Manuel Opulencia.
The police discovered that electric wiring, devices and contraptions had been installed, without the necessary authority from the city government, and "architecturally concealed inside the walls of the building".
These electric devices and contraptions were "designed purposely to lower or decrease the readings of electric current consumption in the electric meter of the said. electric [ice and cold storage] plant." an information against Manuel Opulencia for violation of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1974, Batangas City. A violation of this ordinance was, under its terms punishable by a fine "ranging from Five Pesos (P5.00) to Fifty Pesos (P50.00) or imprisonment, which shall not exceed thirty (30) days, or both, at the discretion of the court". Accused Manuel Opulencia pleaded not guilty... he filed a motion to dismiss the information upon the grounds that the crime there charged had already prescribed and that the civil indemnity there sought to be recovered was beyond the jurisdiction of the Batangas City Court to award.
Batangas City Court granted the motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription, it appearing that the offense charged was a light felony which prescribes two months from the... time of discovery thereof, and it appearing further that the information was filed by the fiscal more than nine months after discovery of the offense charged.
Fourteen (14) days later, there was another information against Manuel Opulencia, and this time for theft of electric power under Article 308 in relation to Article 309 paragraph (1), of the Revised Penal Code.
Before he could be arraigned thereon, Manuel Opulencia filed a Motion to Quash alleging that he had been previously acquitted of the offense charged in the second information and that the filing thereof will be a violation of his constitutional right against double jeopardy. The respondent Judge granted the accused Motion to Quash and ordered the case dismissed.
Issue:
Whether or not Opulencia can invoke double jeopardy against the second case file against him under the RPC.
Ruling:
It is clear both from the express terms of the constitutional provision involved which reads as follows:
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act."
The first sentence of Article IV (22) sets forth the general rule: the constitutional protection against double jeopardy is not available where the second prosecution is for an offense that is different from the offense charged in the first or... prior prosecution, although both the first and second offenses may be based upon the same act or set of acts.
The second sentence of Article IV (22) embodies an exception to the general proposition: the constitutional protection against double jeopardy is available although the prior offense charged under an ordinance be different from the offense charged subsequently under a national statute such as the Revised Penal Code, provided that both offenses spring from the same act or set of acts.
In the case at bar, the relevant acts took place within the same time frame: From November 1974 to February 1975. During this period, the accused Manuel Opulencia installed or permitted the installation of electrical wiring and devices in his ice plant without obtaining the necessary permit or authorization from the municipal authorities. The accused conceded that he effected or permitted such unauthorized installation for the very purpose of reducing his electric power bill.
The law seeks to prevent harassment of an accused person by multiple prosecutions for offenses which though different from one another are nonetheless each constituted by a common set or overlapping sets of technical elements.
It remains to point out that the dismissal by the Batangas City Court of the information for violation of the Batangas City Ordinance upon the ground that such offense had already prescribed, amounts to an acquittal of the accused of that offense.
Manuel Opulencia was able to escape criminal punishment for an offense which had already prescribed. The Supreme Court is compelled by the fundamental law to hold the protection of the right against double jeopardy available even to the private respondent in this case.
However, the civil liability aspects of this case is another matter. Because no reservation of the right to file a separate civil action was made by the Batangas City electric light system, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged was impliedly instituted with the criminal action both before the City Court of Batangas City and the Court of First Instance of Batangas.
The extinction of criminal liability whether by prescription or by the bar of double jeopardy does not carry with it the extinction of civil liability arising from the offense charged.
The related civil action which has not been waived should be remanded to the Court of First Instance of Batangas City for reception of evidence on the amount or value of the electric power appropriated and converted by Manuel Opulencia and rendition of judgment conformably with such evidence.
Hence, the petition for certiorari and mandamus is DENIED.
No comments:
Post a Comment