CrimPro Digest by: Dodot

Esmena v. Pogoy
Ponente: Aquino
Petitioners: Generoso Esmena and Alberto Alba
Respondents: Judge Julian B. Pogoy (City Court of Cebu City, Branch III), People of the Philippines, and
Ricardo B. Tabanao (Special Counsel, Office of the City Fiscal, Cebu City)

Under what topic: QuashalDouble Jeopardy

Synopsis:
Crime/Offense charged to the accused: Grave Coercion

Esmena, Alba and 3 other persons were accused of having committed grave coercion, by forcing a
Rev. Father to withdraw P5k from the bank to give as payment to the accused for having lost in a
game of cards. However although arraigned the trial proper was not able to proceed, due to
several cancellations. Finally, when the Rev. Father failed to appear due to sickness, Esmena and Alba
invoked the right of the accused to a speedy trial. The respondent-judge provisionally dismissed the
case as to the accused who were present. Almost a month later, the fiscal filed a motion for the
revival of the case citing Lauchengco v. Alejandro, the fiscal pointed out that a provisional dismissal
with the conformity of the accused lacks the impress of finality, thus, the case could be revived.
Without any opposition from the accused, the R-J granted the motion. A couple of weeks later,
Esmena and Alba filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of double jeopardy according to
them, the provisional dismissal amounted to an acquittal since they (the accused) did not consent to
it; to revive the case would place them in double jeopardy. The R-J denied the motion to dismiss.

The SC held that a revival of the case would place the accused in double jeopardy. The respondent-
judge failed to take the necessary precautions to ascertain the conformity of the accused with the
provisional dismissal of the case.

Doctrine:

Elements of a legal jeopardy:
1. Valid complaint/information;
2. filed before a court of competent jurisdiction; and,
3. The accused has been arraigned and has pleaded to the complaint/information.

Once all 3 elements are present, the (i) acquittal or (ii) conviction of the accused, or the (iii) dismissal
or termination of the case without his express consent is a bar to another prosecution for the
offense charged. (Or for prosecution for the attempt, frustration of the same offense; or for
prosecution of any other offense which necessarily includes, or which is necessarily included in, the
same offense.)

Facts:
CrimPro Digest by: Dodot


Parties

Esmena and Alba: accused of having committed grave coercion
Reverend Father Tibudan: alleged victim of grave coercion

The Antecedents

Esmena, Alba and 3 other co-accused (Alipio, Encabo, and Villarama) allegedly forced Rev. Father
Tibudan to withdraw P5k from the bank to give to the accused.
Allegedly, the Rev. Father lost the money in a game of cards.

Filing of Complaint/Information

The accused were charged with having committed grave coercion.

Arraignment/Post-arraignment

The case was calendared (for arraignment and trial) on 4 October 1978, However, the Rev. Father
requested that the case be reset to 13 December 1978 this was granted by the City Court.
Esmena and Alba not having been duly notified of the hearing failed to appear in court.

On 23 January 1979, Esmena and Alba pleaded not guilty.
No trial was held afterwards the Rev. Father requested the transfer of the hearing to
another date.

In the meantime, the fiscal lost his record of the case.
Thus, the scheduled hearing (18 June 1979) was cancelled at his instance.
o On that date, the Judge issued an order setting the trial for the last time on 16
August 1979.

On said date, the fiscal informed the court that the private prosecutor received word from the Rev.
Father that he was sick the hearing was cancelled.
Esmena and Alba opposed the cancellation, and invoked the right of the accused to have a
speedy trial.
o The Respondent-Judge provisionally dismissed the case as to the 4 accused who
were present.
He said that the accused were ready for hearing, but the fiscal was not ready
with his witness; the case was continued only as to the 5
th
accused who did
not appear at the hearing his arrest was ordered.
CrimPro Digest by: Dodot

The R-J noted that there was no medical certificate showing that the Rev.
Father really was sick.

27 days later (12 September 1979), the fiscal filed a motion for the revival of the case.
He attached a medical certificate under oath attesting that the Rev. Father had been sick of
influenza.
He cited Lauchengco v. Alejandro which stated that a provisional dismissal with the
conformity of the accused lacks the impress of finality which allows the revival of a case
without having to file a new information.
The R-J granted the motion.
o The accused did not oppose the motion.

On 24 October 1979, Esmena and Alba filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of double
jeopardy.
They pointed out that they did not consent to the provisional dismissal thus, the dismissal
amounted to an acquittal (1
st
Jeopardy).
o A revival of the case would thus place them in double jeopardy.
The fiscal opposed the motion and pointed out that the Rev. Father had appeared in court
several times but the hearing was not held.
The court denied the motion to dismiss.

Thus, this petition for a special civil action of certiorari.
The SolGen agreed with Esmena and Alba regarding double jeopardy.

Issue/s:

(1) Would a revival of the case put the accused in double jeopardy? (YES.)

Held-Ratio:

(1) Esmena and Alba would be placed in double jeopardy should the case be revived

Elements of a legal jeopardy:
1. Valid complaint/information;
2. filed before a court of competent jurisdiction; and,
3. The accused has been arraigned and has pleaded to the complaint/information.

Once all 3 elements are present, the (i) acquittal or (ii) conviction of the accused, or the (iii) dismissal
or termination of the case without his express consent is a bar to another prosecution for the
offense charged. (Or for prosecution for the attempt, frustration of the same offense; or for
CrimPro Digest by: Dodot

prosecution of any other offense which necessarily includes, or which is necessarily included in, the
same offense.)

Case at bar: the dismissal of the case had not been done with the consent of the accused.
The provisional dismissal would not have been a bar to the revival of the case had the R-J
taken the precaution of making sure that the dismissal was with the consent of the accused.
(Typically, judges require the accused and his counsel to sign the minutes of the session or
any available part of the record to show the conformity of the accused or his lack of
objection to the provisional dismissal. The judges then specify in the order of provisional
dismissal that the accused and his counsel signified their assent thereto.)
o Not very clear that the accused had consented.

Some rulings on provisional dismissal and double jeopardy

If the defendant wants to exercise his constitutional right to a speedy trial, he should ask, not for
the dismissal, but for the trial of the case. After the prosecution's motion for postponement of the
trial is denied and upon order of the court the fiscal does not or cannot produce his evidence and,
consequently, fails to prove the defendant's guilt, the court upon defendant's motion shall dismiss
the case, such dismissal amounting to an acquittal of the defendant. (Morans commentary, citing
Gandicela v. Lutero and People v. Diaz)

The dismissal of a criminal case upon motion of the accused because the prosecution was not
prepared for trial since the complainant and his witnesses did not appear at the trial is a dismissal
equivalent to an acquittal that would bar further prosecution of the defendant for the same
offense. (Salcedo v. Mendoza, and other cases)

Dispositive:

Assailed Orders of the respondent-judge REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Digesters notes: