G.R. No. L-45129 March 6, 1987
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN RELOVA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, Second Branch, and MANUEL OPULENCIA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Manuel Opulencia was initially charged before the City Court of Batangas City for violating a municipal ordinance (Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1974) for making unauthorized electrical installations designed to lower his electric meter’s readings, causing damage to the city government. The information specifically alleged damage amounting to P41,062.16. Opulencia pleaded not guilty, but the City Court later granted his motion to dismiss the case on the ground of prescription, as the light offense had prescribed.
Subsequently, the Acting City Fiscal filed a new information before the Court of First Instance, charging Opulencia with the crime of theft of electric power under the Revised Penal Code, based on the same act of tampering with electrical installations to lower consumption, and alleging the same amount of P41,062.16 as the value of the stolen current. Before arraignment, Opulencia moved to quash this second information, claiming that it placed him in double jeopardy following the dismissal of the first case.

ISSUE

Whether the filing of the information for theft under the Revised Penal Code after the dismissal of the case for violation of the city ordinance on the ground of prescription constitutes double jeopardy.

RULING

Yes, the second prosecution is barred by double jeopardy. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the respondent judge’s orders, and directed the trial court to reinstate the information for theft and proceed with the case. The legal logic hinges on the identity of offenses under the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The Court, examining the allegations in the two informations, found them to constitute the same offense. Both charges arose from the same act—the unauthorized installation of devices to lower electric meter readings from November 1974 to February 1975—and sought liability for the same damage of P41,062.16. The first information was not a simple charge of illegal connection but one involving fraud and resulting damage, which is the essence of the crime of theft.
The dismissal of the first case by the City Court, even if on the ground of prescription, was a dismissal without the express consent of the accused and after a valid plea of not guilty. This operates as an acquittal and terminates the case. Consequently, a second prosecution for the same offense, or for an offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the first offense, is barred. Theft under the Revised Penal Code and the violation of the specific city ordinance under the circumstances alleged constitute the same offense for double jeopardy purposes, as the ordinance penalizes the fraudulent act causing damage, which is inseparable from the crime of theft. Therefore, the respondent judge erred in quashing the second information on the ground of double jeopardy.