Scribd
Upload
135 views2 pages

People of The Philippines, Petitioners Mario K. Espinosa - Respondent

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review on certiorari, finding that double jeopardy had attached in the case against Espinosa. Espinosa had been arraigned on charges of estafa and attempted corruption, entering a plea of not guilty. The cases were later withdrawn by the Office of the Ombudsman without Espinosa's consent. New charges of malversation were then filed based on the same acts. The Supreme Court ruled that Espinosa's initial arraignment was not conditional as claimed, that he met the requirements for double jeopardy, and that his substantial right against double jeopardy prevented the second prosecution.

Uploaded by

Yodh Jamin Ong
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
135 views2 pages

People of The Philippines, Petitioners Mario K. Espinosa - Respondent

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review on certiorari, finding that double jeopardy had attached in the case against Espinosa. Espinosa had been arraigned on charges of estafa and attempted corruption, entering a plea of not guilty. The cases were later withdrawn by the Office of the Ombudsman without Espinosa's consent. New charges of malversation were then filed based on the same acts. The Supreme Court ruled that Espinosa's initial arraignment was not conditional as claimed, that he met the requirements for double jeopardy, and that his substantial right against double jeopardy prevented the second prosecution.

Uploaded by

Yodh Jamin Ong
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CRIMPRO Rule 116

Title GR No. 153714-20


People vs Espinosa Date: August 15, 2003
Ponente: PANGANIBAN, J.
People of the Philippines, Petitioners Mario K. Espinosa – Respondent
Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking the reversal of the decision of the
Sandiganbayan in dismissing seven new informations filed against the respondent on the ground of double
jeopardy.
FACTS
1. On February 4, 1998, separate cases of estafa and attempted corruption of public officials were filed
before the Sandiganbayan(SBN for brevity) by the Office of the Ombudsman against respondent Espinosa,
then provincial administrator of Masbate and several other individuals.
2. Before his arraignment, Espinosa filed a motion for reinvestigation of the cases before the Sandiganbayan.
On March 23, 1988, the same court granted the said motion of the accused, hence directed the Office of
the Special Prosecutor to evaluate the evidence against him.
3. While the cases were being reevaluated, Espinosa filed a motion for Leave to travel abroad for the period
May 2-13, 1999.
4. On the date set for the hearing of the motion, SBN issued an order resetting the hearing to April 22,1999.
Furthermore it required the respondent to be conditionally arraigned on that date before the SBN would
act on his motion to travel.
5. As such, Espinosa was arraigned and his motion to travel was granted. He entered the plea of not guilty to
both informations filed against him.
6. On December 28, 1998, the Office of the Ombudsman through the Office of the Special Prosecutor moved
to withdraw ex parte the cases filed against the Espinosa. The said motion was granted by the SBN.
7. Thereafter, the Office of the Ombudsman filed in the same court seven informations for Malversation of
Public funds against Espinosa and several others.
8. On January 22, 2001, Espinosa filed a motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy. He argued that
double jeopardy had already attached because he had been arraigned in the previous estafa cases and
the motion to withdraw had been granted without his express consent.
9. On other hand, the Ombudsman argued that the arraignment with respect to the two previous cases was
conditional. It was made solely for the purpose of accommodating private respondents request to travel
abroad while the matters were pending reinvestigation.
10. The SBN ruled in favour of Espinosa.
ISSUE/S
W/N there is double jeopardy – YES
RATIO
Procedural Lapses- The Court ruled that the petitioner failed to follow the proper procedure. First, the petitioner
should have first filed a motion for reconsideration before the SBN. The extraordinary remedy of certiorari will lie
only when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Second, the proper remedy is rule 45 and not rule 65. Section 7 of PD No. 1606, as amended by RA 8249 provides
that “decisions of the SB shall be appealable to the SC by a petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions
of law in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Main Issue- The petitioner argued that the arraignment of the accused was made conditionally in order for the
SB to act on his motion to travel. The Supreme Court ruled that such practice is not mentioned or provided for in
the regular rules of procedure. The Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan promulgated by the Supreme
Court, does not mention any conditional arraignment, neither the regular rules of court. The Supreme Court
further stated that Espinosa pleaded simply and unconditionally on April 22, 1999. Furthermore, the argument of
the petitioner that Espinosa knew at that time that his arraignment is being made conditionally in order for his
motion to travel be granted, amounts to a waiver of his right against double jeopardy failed to persuade the
Court. We must note that the right against double jeopardy is enshrined section 21 of the 1987 Constitution. This
Constitutionally mandated right is procedurally buttressed by section 17 of rule 117 of the revised rules of
Criminal Procedure. Substantial rights cannot be trifled with or cast aside on the mere suppositions and
conjectures. The relinquishment of a Constitutional right has to be laid out convincingly. Such waiver must be
clear, categorical, knowing and intelligent. The alleged waiver falls short of the above requirement.

All requisites of double jeopardy are present in this case, to wit: 1.) first jeopardy must have attached prior to the
second, 2.) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated, 3.) the second jeopardy must be for the same
offense or the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information or
is an attempt to commit the same or is a frustration thereof. And legal jeopardy attaches only if: a) upon a valid
indictment, b) before a competent court, c) after arraignment, d) a valid plea has been entered and e) the case
was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.

We must note that Espinosa did not participate nor consent with the withdrawal of the cases against him. As a
matter of fact, the accused learned of the motion only after the cases against him had been dismissed. The
petitioner does not even dispute the fact that Espinosa was not notified of this motion neither was a hearing held
thereon.
In a nutshell, the alleged conditions attached to an arraignment must be unmistakable, express, informed
and enlightened. They must be expressly stated in the Order disposing of the arraignment. Otherwise, the
plea should be deemed to be simple and unconditional. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy