Arnold James Ysidro

G.R. 171513
---vs--Hon. Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Hon. Diosdado Peralta, and Hon. Efren De La Cruz,
Sandiganbayan 1st Division Justices
x---------------------------------------------------------------------x
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. 190963
---vs--SANDIGANBAYAN 1st DIVISION
Right against double jeopardy
FACTS:
1. Petitioner Ysidro, as municipal mayor of Leyte, was charged before the Sandiganbayan
an Information for withholding and failing to give to Mrs. Doller (municipal DSWD
Officer) her RATA and Productivity pay without any legal basis
2. Ysidro filed a motion to quash and/or judicial determination of probable cause.
Sandiganbayan denied the motion. Ysidro was then arraigned and pleaded not guilty.
3. Prosecution filed a motion to preventively suspend Ysidro for 90 days, in accordance
with RA 3019 which says that an incumbent public officer charged under RA 3019 or
RPC involving fraud upon government or public funds/property must be suspended.
a. Sandiganbayan granted the motion
b. Ysidro filed MR, questioning the necessity and duration, but was denied
c. Hence this petition (GR 171513)
4. (FOR READING PLEASURE): Prosecution presented the aggrieved party, Mrs. Doller as
its sole witness, along with documentary evidence. She said that her RATA and
Productivity Pay was withheld because her husband shifted political allegiance to
Ysidros opponent. Ysidro claims that Doller was being investigated for alleged
anomalies which is why her RATA and Productivity pay was withheld.
5. Meanwhile, Sandiganbayan acquits Ysidro. Held that malice and ill-motive or bad faith
was not present. Prosecutions MR likewise denied.
6. Given that Sandiganbayan has already acquitted Ysidro, and Ysidro is no longer the
incumbent mayor of Leyte, the issue on G.R. 171513 has become moot
7. Hence, what remains to be resolved is the PEOPLEs petition before the SC.
ISSUE: W/N there exists double jeopardy in this case. YES. No reason to reverse
Sandiganbayan decision
RATIO:
The ultimate issue is w/n the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion when it acquitted
Ysidro.
First, the court resolves to differentiate the three procedural remedies in order for a party to
appeal a decision of the trial court. First is by ordinary appeal under R122 of the 2000 Revised

Rules on Criminal Procedure. Second is by petition for review under R45. Third is the special
civil action of certiorari under R65. Each one is unique and may only be availed of depending on
the nature of the judgment being sought.

R122 resolves factual and legal issues. Issues not properly raised but are nevertheless
material in the resolution of the case may be resolved in this.
R45 is generally limited to review of legal issues. Under this, the Court determines if
there is proper application of the law. The assailed judgment in this mode may be
intrinsically valid, albeit erroneous.
R65 is strictly confined to the determination of the propriety of the trial courts
jurisdiction and w/n such exercise of jurisdiction is attended with grave abuse of
discretion. The assailed judgment in this case is an invalid judgment because of the
grave abuse of discretion. Rule against double jeopardy does not apply in this case.

The constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy proscribes appeals of judgments
of acquittal through the remedies of ordinary appeal (R122) and a Rule 45 petition
IN THIS CASE, even though the petition under GR 190963 is one for R65 review, it is merely
used as a guise to have the SC look at the evidence reviewed; to call for the SCs own
appreciation of the evidences raised. The petition does not raise any denial of due process for
the PEOPLE.
As a rule, misapplication of facts and evidence and erroneous conclusions do not, by mere fact
that errors were committed, rise to the level of grave abuse of discretion. The abuse itself must
be grave and amply demonstrated since the jurisdiction of the court will be affected.
Jurisprudence defines grave abuse of discretion as:
Grave abuse of discretion is defined as capricious or whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must
be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual
refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of
law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by
reason of passion and hostility
The grave abuse of discretion does not appear in this case. Also, on the merits, the court
upholds the acquittal of Ysidro
WHEREFORE, petitions DISMISSED.