G.R. No. 46039 ; August 30, 1938
ELIAS ESGUERRA, petitioner, vs. SIXTO DE LA COSTA, Judge of First Instance of Rizal, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Elias Esguerra was charged three times for the same alleged crime of abuse of chastity against Luzonica Zapanta on August 29, 1936. The first complaint was dismissed because it was not signed by the offended party or her parents. The second complaint, filed by the offended party’s father, led to an information in the Court of First Instance (Criminal Case No. 10198). Petitioner pleaded not guilty, but the court later dismissed the case motu proprio upon learning the offended party was between 17 and 18 years old. A third complaint was then filed, leading to Criminal Case No. 10546. Petitioner moved to dismiss on grounds of double jeopardy and denial of his right to a speedy trial, but the respondent judge denied the motion.

ISSUE

1. Whether the dismissal of the second case (No. 10198) placed petitioner in double jeopardy, barring the third prosecution.
2. Whether petitioner was deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

RULING

1. Yes, petitioner was placed in double jeopardy. The second complaint, signed by the offended party’s father (a minor), was valid and sufficient. The Court of First Instance acquired jurisdiction. The dismissal of the case after petitioner had pleaded not guilty, and without his consent, constituted jeopardy under Section 28 of General Orders No. 58, barring a new prosecution for the same offense.
2. Yes, petitioner was denied his right to a speedy trial. The repeated prosecutions within a short period, requiring multiple arrests and bonds, caused continuous uncertainty and vexation. The constitutional and statutory guarantee to a speedy trial entitles an accused to have the case dismissed if violated.
The petition for mandamus is granted. The respondent judge is ordered to definitively dismiss Criminal Case No. 10546 and cancel petitioner’s bond.

AI Generated by Armztrong.