PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN and ZURBANO

REMEDIAL LAW DRAFT No.
: 1
Rani Mae Aberin
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANDIGANBAYAN and FELICIDAD ZURBANO

G.R. Nos. 233280-92, 18 September 2019, THIRD DIVISION, (Peralta, J.)
DOCTRINE OF THE CASE
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If
an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of

a positive duty or 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 party questioning the acquittal of an
accused should be able to clearly establish that the trial court blatantly abused its
discretion such that it was deprived of its authority to dispense justice
FACTS
Zurbano was indicted for 13 counts of violation of Section 3(h) of R.A. No. 3019.
Petitioner presented two witnesses to prove its theory that respondent took advantage
of her official position as TESDA-Cavite Provincial Director by feloniously having an
indirect financial or pecuniary interest in the 13 contracts entered into by her office with
CDZ Enterprises, which was owned by her sister, Nieves Brillo Cabigan.
Petitioner presented two (2) witnesses to prove its theory that respondent took
advantage of her official position as TESDA-Cavite Provincial Director. First to testify
was Arnold Campos, who worked as a driver and later on designated as canvasser.
The Sandiganbayan rendered its Decision finding respondent Zurbano guilty

beyond reasonable doubt. Zurbano filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The
Sandiganbayan granted respondent's Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental
Motion for Reconsideration and, accordingly, acquitted the respondent of the offense
charged.
Upon granting the Motion for Recosideration, the Sandiganbayan pointed out that
the prosecution did not sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt the second element
of the crime charged. While citing Republic v. Tuvera, the Sandiganbayan ruled that the
existence of relationship per se does not automatically translate to having direct or
indirect financial interest in the subject contracts.
As a response, the prosecution filed a Very Urgent Motion for Reconsideration,

which was denied in the Resolution issued by the Sandiganbayan. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan in

granting the respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration
RULING:
NO. In our jurisdiction, the finality-of-acquittal doctrine as a safeguard against

double jeopardy faithfully adheres to the principle first enunciated in Kepner v. United
States. In this case, verdicts of acquittal are to be regarded as absolutely final and
irreviewable.
The proscription against placing the accused in double jeopardy is expressly

mandated in the 1987 Constitution which provides that, "No person shall be twice put in
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an
ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another
prosecution for the same act." The elements of double jeopardy are (1) the complaint or
information was sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the court
had jurisdiction; (3) the accused had been arraigned and had pleaded; and (4) the
accused was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed without his express
consent. The only instance when the accused can be barred from invoking his right
against double jeopardy is when it can be demonstrated that the trial court acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the
prosecution was not allowed the opportunity to make its case against the accused or
where the trial was sham.
In this case, all the elements of double jeopardy are present: (1) the Informations
for thirteen (13) counts of violation of Section 3(h) of R.A. No. 3019 were sufficient in
form and substance to sustain the conviction of the respondent; (2) the court a
quo definitely had jurisdiction over the cases; (3) arraignment took place on July 13,
2006 where the respondent entered a negative plea; and (4) the court a quo, on motion
for reconsideration filed by the respondent, acquitted the latter of the offense charged.
Petitioner's claim of grave abuse of discretion on part of the Sandiganbayan does

not persuade the Court. Grave abuse of discretion has been defined as that capricious
or whimsical exercise of judgment which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse
of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or
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 party questioning the acquittal of an accused should be able
to clearly establish that the trial court blatantly abused its discretion such that it was
deprived of its authority to dispense justice.
Contrary to petitioner's assertions, the conclusions of the Sandiganbayan were

not whimsical, capricious or arbitrary, considering that material and relevant evidence
and existing jurisprudence were indeed considered in the assailed Resolutions dated
February 21, 2017 and June 15, 2017.

PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN and ZURBANO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN and ZURBANO

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN and ZURBANO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REMEDIAL LAW DRAFT No.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANDIGANBAYAN and FELICIDAD ZURBANO

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of

The Sandiganbayan rendered its Decision finding respondent Zurbano guilty

As a response, the prosecution filed a Very Urgent Motion for Reconsideration,

Whether there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan in

NO. In our jurisdiction, the finality-of-acquittal doctrine as a safeguard against

The proscription against placing the accused in double jeopardy is expressly

Petitioner's claim of grave abuse of discretion on part of the Sandiganbayan does

Contrary to petitioner's assertions, the conclusions of the Sandiganbayan were

You might also like