YSIDORO v. HON. TERESITA J. LEONARDO DE CASTRO et. al.
G.R. No. 17153
February 6, 2012
Facts:
Ysidoro, as Municipal Mayor of Leyte, Leyte, was charged before the Sandiganbayan, with
violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Acts), as amended. The prosecution alleged that while in the course of the performance of his
official functions he had deprived the complainant of her RATA and Productivity Pay, to the
damage and injury of Nierna S. Doller and detriment of public service.[5]
Ysidoro filed an omnibus motion to quash the information and, in the alternative, for judicial
determination of probable cause,[6] which were both denied by the Sandiganbayan. In due course,
Ysidoro was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty.
On motion of the prosecution,[7] the Sandiganbayan preventively suspended Ysidoro. He filed a
motion for reconsideration, and questioned the necessity and the duration of the preventive
suspension. However, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion for reconsideration.
Ysidoro assailed the validity of these Sandiganbayan rulings in his petition (G.R. No. 171513)
before the Court. Meanwhile, trial on the merits in the principal case continued before the
Sandiganbayan.
In a decision dated October 1, 2009,[11] the Sandiganbayan acquitted Ysidoro and held that the
second element of the offense that there be malice, ill-motive or bad faith was not present.
The People filed a petition for certiorari asserting that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its
discretion when it ruled that Doller was not eligible to receive the productivity bonus for her
failure to submit her Performance Evaluation Report. The Sandiganbayan disregarded the
evidence showing the strained relationship and the maneuverings made by Ysidoro so that he
could deny her this incentive.
Issue: Whether the petition for certiorari filed by the People is the proper remedy.
Ruling: NO.
We dismiss the petitions for being procedurally and substantially infirm.
As applied to judgments rendered in criminal cases, unlike a review via a Rule 65 petition, only
judgments of conviction can be reviewed in an ordinary appeal or a Rule 45 petition. The
constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy proscribes appeals of judgments of
acquittal through the remedies of ordinary appeal and a Rule 45 petition
However, the rule against double jeopardy cannot be properly invoked in a Rule 65 petition,
predicated on two (2) exceptional grounds, namely: in a judgment of acquittal rendered with
grave abuse of discretion by the court; and where the prosecution had been deprived of due
process. The rule against double jeopardy does not apply in these instances because a Rule 65
petition does not involve a review of facts and law on the merits in the manner done in an appeal.
In certiorari proceedings, judicial review does not examine and assess the evidence of the parties
nor weigh the probative value of the evidence. It does not include an inquiry on the correctness
of the evaluation of the evidence. A review under Rule 65 only asks the question of whether there
has been a validly rendered decision, not the question of whether the decision is legally correct.
In other words, the focus of the review is to determine whether the judgment is per se void on
jurisdictional grounds.
We find that while the People was procedurally correct in filing its petition for certiorari under
Rule 65, the petition does not raise any jurisdictional error committed by the Sandiganbayan. On
the contrary, what is clear is the obvious attempt by the People to have the evidence in the case
reviewed by the Court under the guise of a Rule 65 petition. This much can be deduced by
examining the petition itself which does not allege any bias, partiality or bad faith committed by
the Sandiganbayan in its proceedings. The petition does not also raise any denial of the Peoples
due process in the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan.
We observe, too, that the grounds relied in the petition relate to factual errors of judgment which
are more appropriate in an ordinary appeal rather than in a Rule 65 petition. The grounds cited in
the petition call for the Courts own appreciation of the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan on
the sufficiency of the Peoples evidence in proving the element of bad faith, and the sufficiency of
the evidence denying productivity bonus to Doller.
We resolve to dismiss the Peoples petition. We cannot review a verdict of acquittal which does
not impute or show any jurisdictional error committed by the Sandiganbayan.
