Pp vs Relova and Opulencia

TOPIC: Extinction and survival of civil liability arising from criminal offenses

Doctrine: 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.

Keywords: Illegal installation of electrical wiring

Summary (4-liner): Manuel Opulencia, owner and Operator of an ice plant, was
discovered to have installed electric wiring and devices without the necessary
authority from the city government. The civil action for the alleged violation of a city
ordinance was dismissed on the ground of prescription. Days later, ACF filed an
information against Opulencia for theft under the RPC, but was quashed on the
ground of the violation of a constitutional right against double jeopardy. On the issue
of civil liability, the court ruled that, 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.

Facts:

Equipped with a search warrant, the members of the Batangas City Police together
with personnel of Batangas Electric Light System 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 plant.
An information was filed against Opulencia for the alleged violation of a city
ordinance. Opulencia pleaded not guilty and 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 City
Court to award.
The City Court granted the motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription, it
appearing that the offense charged was a light felony which prescribes 2 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 days later, another information against Opulencia was filed by the Assistant
City Fiscal, but this time for theft of electric power under Article 308 in relation to
Article 309 paragraph (1), RPC.
Before he could be arraigned thereon, 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 was violative of his constitutional right against
double jeopardy. The Assistant fiscal’s claim is that it is not double jeopardy because
the 1st offense charged against Opulencia 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 2nd offense which is theft of electricity which is punishable by the
RPC making it a different crime charged against the 1st complaint against
Mr.Opulencia.
Respondent Judge Relova granted the accused's Motion to Quash and ordered the
case dismissed. Hence this petition.

Issue:
1. Whether Opulencia can invoke double jeopardy as defense to the second offense
charged against him on the ground of theft of electricity punishable by a statute
against the Revised Penal Code.- Yes
2. Whether civil liability is extinguished with the extinction of criminal liability.(Related
issue to Torts)- No.

Held:
1. Yes, Mr. Opulencia 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.

2. No, 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.

In the present case,accused Opulencia freely admitted during the police investigation
having stolen electric current through the installation and use of unauthorized
electrical connections or devices. While the accused pleaded not guilty before the
City Court of Batangas City, he did not deny having appropriated electric power.
However, there is no evidence in the record as to the amount or value of the electric
power appropriated by Manuel Opulencia, the criminal informations having been
dismissed both by the City Court and by the Court of First Instance (from which
dismissals the Batangas City electric light system could not have appealed) before
trial could begin.
Accordingly, the related civil action which has not been waived expressly or impliedly,
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.