Ruben was charged with Estafa before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. During trial, after the prosecution had presented two witnesses, the private complainant, Angelica, stopped attending the hearings. After Angelica failed to appear for three consecutive scheduled hearings despite due notice, the public prosecutor filed a Motion for Provisional Dismissal under Rule 117, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, with Ruben's express consent. The RTC granted the motion and provisionally dismissed the case on June 15, 2023. On July 20, 2024, Angelica, having returned from abroad, filed a Motion for Revival of the case, accompanied by her affidavit explaining that she had to leave the country due to a family emergency. The prosecution moved to revive the case. Ruben opposed the motion, invoking his right against double jeopardy, arguing that more than one year had elapsed since the provisional dismissal. The RTC granted the motion to revive. On appeal, Ruben argues that the revival violated his right against double jeopardy. Is Ruben correct? Explain. (Bar 2026 Syllabus)