Consti II case digest:PEOPLE VS RELOVA

Double jeopardy: Two kinds: 2.Same act:

FACTS:

Respondent herein is the judge who rendered the decision dismissing the petition of the prosecutor to charge Manuel Opulencia in violation of Municipal ordinance S1 of 1974 for illegal installation of electric wire do reduce electric consumption for his factory - Opulencia Ice Plant. An information however was filed after almost 9 months. The responded herein then moved to quash the charges for grounds of prescription, that since the violation is classified as light felony, only two months is given for prescription.

The lower court granted the motion to quash. The prosecutor then, after the motion was granted, filed another charge against the respondent company owner, on ground of theft. That according to the prosecutor, illegal installation which is punishable under the municipal ordinance and theft of electricity punishable under the RPC are different.

ISSEUE:

Whether the dismessal fo the first case can be properly pleaded by the accused in the motion to quash.

HELD:

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 ma be based upon the same act or set of facts.

But the protection against double jeopardy is available although the prior offense charged under an ordinance be different from the offense charged subsequently udner a national statude, provided that both offenses spring from the same act or set of facts.

The first sentence prohibits double jeopardy of punishment for the same offense, whereas the second contemplates double jeopardy of punishment for the same act. Under the first sentence, one may be twice put to jeopardy provided that he is charged with different offenses, or the offense  charges is not included or does not icnlude, the crime charged it he other case. The second sentence applies even if the offenses charged are not the same, owing to the fact that one constitutes a violation of an ordinance and the other a violation of the statues. If two charges are based on one and the same act, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution under other.

In the case at bar, the Supreme held that the theft of electric current contended by the prosecutor is indeed part of the offense charged under the municipal ordinance of Batangas, which is the illegal or unauthorized installation of electrical wiring because immediate physical effect of the installation is the inward flow of electric current into Opulencia’s ice plant.

The petition is dismissed.