In a resolution penned by Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena, the Sandiganbayan said the charges against Espinosa had been previously dismissed, thus constituting double jeopardy.
The charges cropped up in 1995 when he, as Masbate provincial administrator, signed seven vouchers and checks which were encashed by individuals other than the stated payees.
Charges of estafa through falsification of public documents and corruption of public officials were then filed against Espinosa with the Office of the Ombudsman.
Now a presidential consultant, Espinosa filed a motion for reinvestigation with the court, arguing that as provincial administrator, he was duty-bound to sign the checks in question since all the other required signatures in the vouchers covering the checks were in order.
Espinosa said it would have been dereliction of public duly on his part had he refused to sign the checks.
He noted that under the Local Government Code, provincial or city administrators, along with the local treasurers and chief executives, are authorized signatories.
On orders of the court, the Ombudsman conducted a reinvestigation and subsequently withdrew the estafa and corruption charges. However, it filed seven counts of malversation of public funds against Espinosa with the Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan said the malversation raps amounted to double jeopardy since Espinosa was being asked to defend himself anew on charges that had been dismissed.
The anti-graft court said the new charges against Espinosa were substantially based on the same facts in the earlier case for which he had been cleared of.
"The dismissal should lay to rest the one and only instance when my fitness to hold public office was put into question. Clearly, the decision was not merely based on a technicality, but premised on a clear violation of my constitutional right against double jeopardy," Espinosa said.