G.R. No. 203530 - Luzon Development Bank vs. Krish

Petitioners Generoso Esmena, Alberto Alba, and co-accused Genaro Alipio, Vicente Encabo, and Bernardo Villamira were charged with grave coercion in the City Court of Cebu City.
They allegedly forced Reverend Father Tomas Tibudan of Jaro Cathedral, Iloilo City, to withdraw ₱5,000.00 from a bank and give it to the accused because the priest lost it in a card game.
The case was initially set for arraignment and trial on October 4, 1978, but was reset upon Father Tibudan’s telegraphic request to December 13, 1978.

Petitioners Esmena and Alba did not appear for the December 13, 1978 hearing due to lack of proper notice. They later pleaded not guilty on January 23, 1979.
No trial took place after the arraignment because Father Tibudan requested further hearings to be transferred to other dates.
The City Fiscal lost the case records, leading to the cancellation of the June 18, 1979 hearing.

The trial was finally set for the "last time" on August 16, 1979.
On August 16, 1979, the fiscal informed the court that the complainant was sick by telegram, which the petitioners opposed on the ground of their constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Respondent judge provisionally dismissed the case as to the four accused present due to prosecution’s unreadiness, but no medical certificate was presented at that time. The case against the fifth accused was continued, and his arrest was ordered.
On September 12, 1979, the fiscal filed a motion to revive the dismissed case, attaching a medical certificate confirming Father Tibudan’s illness on August 16, 1979. The petitioners did not oppose the revival motion.
Respondent judge granted the motion to revive the case on October 8, 1979.

On October 24, 1979, Esmena and Alba moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the provisional dismissal without their consent amounted to an acquittal, placing them in jeopardy, thus reviving the case would amount to double jeopardy.
The fiscal opposed, citing previous appearances of Father Tibudan and delays due to his absence.
The court denied the motion to dismiss, prompting the petitioners to file the present special civil action of certiorari.
The Solicitor General concurred with petitioners that reviving the case after a provisional dismissal without consent violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

Whether the provisional dismissal of the grave coercion case, which occurred after the accused’s arraignment and before trial, without the accused’s express consent, placed the accused in double jeopardy.
Whether the revival of the criminal case after such a provisional dismissal violates the accused’s constitutional right to a speedy trial and protection against double jeopardy.