YSIDORO v.

DE CASTRO - For assailed judgment through ordinary appeal or a rule 45 petition, the subject is a
Doctrine of estoppel in relation to the plea of double jeopardy| 6 Feb 2012 | J. Brion
Nature of Case: Certiorari
Digest maker: Africa
SUMMARY: Ysidoro, then mayor, was charged with violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA No. 3019 for
withholding Doller’s, a municipal social welfare and development officer, RATA and
productivity bonus. He was acquitted, hence this petition for certiorari. The Court ruled that
the acquittal was properly questioned by filing petition under Rule 65, it cannot proceed
since allegations do not question court’s jurisdiction in ruling the case.
judgment which is intrinsically valid, albeit erroneous. Meanwhile, Rule 65 addresses errors
of jurisdiction which is an invalid judgment because of defect in authority to rule.
- In accordance with constitutional rights against double jeopardy, acquittal of the accused
cannot be reviewed via ordinary appeal or Rule 45 petition. However, the rule against
double jeopardy cannot be invoked in a Rule 65 petition.
- While petitioner is correct in filing petition for certiorari, no jurisdictional error was raised.
This didn’t raise any bias committed by Sandiganbayan or denial of due process. On the
contrary, it attempts to have the evidence reviewed, which are more appropriately
addressed by an ordinary appeal.

DOCTRINE: In accordance with constitutional rights against double jeopardy, acquittal of

the accused cannot be reviewed via ordinary appeal or Rule 45 petition. However, the rule 2. WON the petition was substantially infirm. — YES
against double jeopardy cannot be invoked in a Rule 65 petition. - Assuming arguendo that the petition can proceed, misapplication of facts and erroneous
conclusions do not, by mere fact of errors committed, rise to level of grave abuse of
discretion.
FACTS: - There was no indication from the records that the Sandiganbayan acted arbitrarily,
1. Ysodoro, then mayor of Leyte, was charged with violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA No. 3019 for
capriciously and whimsically in arriving at its verdict of acquittal. In this case, Ysidoro was
withholding Doller’s, a municipal social welfare and development officer, representation
acquitted for two reasons: his bad faith (an element of the crime charged) was not
and transportation allowance (RATA) as well as her productivity bonus. It was alleged that
sufficiently proven by the prosecution evidence, and there was exculpatory evidence of his
Ysidoro ordered her name to be deleted in the payroll allegedly because of the transfer of
good faith.
her husband to the political party of Ysidoro’s opponent. - In fact, Doller even disproved his bad faith when she admitted that several cases had been
2. During the course of the trial, Sandiganbayan preventive suspended Ysidoro for 90 days in
actually filed against her before the Office of the Ombudsman. The totality of evidence
accordance with Sec. 13 of RA No. 3019. Later on, the accused was acquitted on the ground
provides sufficient grounds to create reasonable doubt on Ysidoro’s bad faith.
that the second element of the offence that there be malice, ill-motive, or bad faith was not
present.
RULING: Petition DISMISSED.
3. People filed petition for certiorari alleging that Sandiganbayan gravely abused its
discretion, and exceeded its, or acted without, jurisdiction in not finding Ysidoro in bad
faith when he withheld Doller’s RATA and deprived her of her productivity bonus.
Specifically, it alleged that Sandiganbayan failed to take into account that COA resident
auditor was never presented, and Ysidoro caused her removal in the payroll without
justifiable cause, among other things.

ISSUE/S & RATIO:

1. WON the petition was procedurally infirm. — YES
- There are three remedies to appeal decision of trial court in criminal cases:
a. Ordinary appeal under Sec. 3 of Rule 122 — for factual and legal issues which have
not bee properly raised by the parties but are nevertheless material in the resolution of
case.
b. Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 — only resolves questions on whether
or not a proper application of law was made in a given set of facts
c. Special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 — determines whether the trial court
has jurisdiction and if so, whether or not the exercise of jurisdiction has been attended
with grave abuse of discretion