G.R. Nos. 153714-20 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MARIO K. ESPINOSA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, these cases are DISMISSED as against accused Mario K. Espinosa alone." [3] The Antecedents On February 4, 1998, separate cases of estafa and attempted corruption of public officers were filed before the SBN by the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) against (1) Respondent Espinosa, then provincial administrator of Masbate; (2) Emma Vasquez; and (3) Romeo Sanano. The cases were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 24438 and 24439. Prior to his arraignment, Espinosa filed a Motion for Reinvestigation of the cases. The SBN Fourth Division granted the Motion in an Order [4] dated March 23, 1988, and directed the Office of the Special Prosecutor to evaluate the evidence against the accused. While the cases were being reevaluated, Espinosa filed with the SBN a Motion for Leave to Travel Abroad for the period May 2-13, 1999. On the date set for the hearing of the Motion, the SBN (Fourth Division) issued an Order resetting the hearing to April 22, 1999. It required private respondent to be "conditionally arraigned on that date" [5] before it would act on his Motion to Travel. As ordered, private respondent was arraigned, and thereafter granted his Motion to Travel. The Order of Arraignment dated April 22, 2000, stated that "upon being duly arraigned, [he] entered a plea of `Not Guilty' to both Informations in Crim. Case Nos. 24438 and 24439." [6] The Court also ordered the deferment of the pretrial of the cases, pending the reinvestigation then being conducted by the Ombudsman. On December 28, 2000, the OMB -- through the Office of the Special Prosecutor -- moved to withdraw ex parte the two cases against private respondent. The SBN granted the Motion in a Resolution dated January 9, 2001. Thereafter, the OMB filed in the same court seven Informations for Malversation of Public Funds against Espinosa and several others. These Informations were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 24622 to 24628 and raffled to the SBN First Division. On January 22, 2001, Espinosa filed a Motion to Quash the Informations. He argued that double jeopardy had already attached, because (1) he had been arraigned in the previous estafa cases; and (2) the Motion to Withdraw the two earlier ones had been granted without his express consent. Petitioner countered that the arraignment for the two previous cases was "conditional," because it was made solely for the purpose of accommodating private respondent's request to travel abroad while the matters were pending reinvestigation. Ruling of the Sandiganbayan In its assailed Resolution, the SBN First Division ruled that jeopardy had attached in the first instance when Criminal Case Nos. 24438-24439 were dismissed upon the prosecution's " ex parte motion to withdraw the information." It noted that the dismissal had been sought and obtained without respondent's knowledge, much less express consent. It likewise held private respondent's actual arraignment to be straightforward and unqualified. The records did not disclose any circumstance showi