MORE Power settles 703 pilferage cases

By Francis Allan L. Angelo

MORE Electric and Power Corp, the sole power distributor in Iloilo City, has struck more than 700 compromise agreements with consumers who were allegedly caught stealing electricity.

In fact, several cases filed against some consumers for violation of Republic Act 7832 (Anti-Pilferage of Electricity and Theft of Electric Transmission Lines/Materials Act of 1994) were also dismissed after settling their arrears with MORE Power.

The distribution utility issued the clarification following the issuance of an arrest warrant against Iloilo City Councilor Carlos Javellana and wife Katrina last week for the same charges.

The warrant was served to the couple at around 9:15 a.m. of Sept. 28. They were later taken to the police station, where they posted bail of P72,000 each.

A document obtained by Daily Guardian indicated that the charges against the couple were for alleged violations of Sections 2(a) and 2(e) of Republic Act No. 7832 (Anti-Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/Materials Pilferage Act of 1994).

In a statement over the weekend, MORE Power said it has already withdrawn the case against the Javellanas following a compromise agreement with the couple sometime in March 2021.

“Upon being notified of the issuance of a warrant of arrest against them, we manifested to the Court that it has been already settled and notified them that we have a pending motion filed with the Prosecutor’s Office for the withdrawal of the information against the accused,” the distribution utility said.

MORE Power said that “it is not within our domain to meddle with the affairs of the Prosecution Service and the Courts in the issuance of warrant of arrest against them.”

“We have dutifully done our part to inform the Prosecution Office that we have reached a compromise and that we are no longer interested in pursuing the said case.”

Apart from the Javellana couple, MORE Power said it has withdrawn several cases against the other violators of the same act after they have settled with us their obligation, “so our rule applies to anybody regardless of their status in our society.”

The distribution utility also cited the status of cases it filed against some consumers:

-703 Compromise Agreements accepted by MORE for payment of differential billings

-19 Dismissed Cases after full payment and upon filing of our Motion to Withdraw

-23 Awaiting Dismissal upon completion of payment of their obligation based on the staggered payment scheme agreed upon by the Parties

-108 Pending Cases filed and pending at the City Prosecutor’s Office and Regional Trial Court

-Some 54 Additional Cases up for filing this October

“As the Prosecution and the Court work to fulfill their mandate, we ask everyone to remain vigilant and abide by laws, bearing in mind that MORE Power is determined to implement what is right for the benefit of the consumers of Iloilo City,” it added.

Earlier MORE Power’s legal counsel, Allana Babayen-on, said in a radio interview that the Javellanas already settled their account with the distribution utility after paying P179,000 in March 2021, a month after the case was filed with the Iloilo City Prosecutor’s Office.

The amount was based on the presumed unpaid amount of consumed electricity without the use of a meter.

Because of the settlement, MORE Power filed a motion to withdraw, which was filed and received by the City Prosecutor’s Office on July 28.

But as Babayen-on explained, the prosecutor found probable cause to charge the couple and already elevated the case to the court.

“Although we have manifested that we would withdraw [the criminal charges], I think the prosecutor’s resolution came first. This means that at their level, they have determined that there was probable cause, so they resolved to file the information in court. Our motion to withdraw may have come late, and the case had already reached the court. The court issued a warrant, and we reiterated to the court that we had settled the civil liability with the accused, and that we are requesting for the withdrawal of the information,” Babayen-on explained.

She clarified further that while they wished to withdraw their charges against the Javellanas, it was entirely the prosecutor’s decision to elevate the case.

“We do not control the prosecutor’s office. They also have a mandate and a right on how they can resolve cases based on the evidence submitted by the complainant, and also the affidavits of the respondents. We have also stated that we will file the necessary motions but we cannot assure that in the prosecutor level, the case would be dismissed,” she said.