G.R. No.

95642
May 28, 1992
Lopez, AMC
AURELIO G. ICASIANO, JR., petitioner vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN
and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents
Topic: Double Jeopardy
Facts:
1. Romana Magbago filed an administrative complaint against Judge
Icasiano for grave abuse of authority, manifest partiality and
incompetence.
a. The case arose from two orders of detention issued by the
Judge against Magbago for her refusal to comply with fifth
writ of execution
b. However, Supreme Court dismissed this administrative case.
2. Meanwhile, Magabago also filed in the Ombudsman against Judge
Icasiano for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
(docketed as TBP 924)
3. Special Prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the case for lack of
merit. Such recommendation was approved by the Tanodbayan. The
resolution was released on April 1988.
4. However, Office of Tanodbayan received another complaint from
Magbago which no was docketed as TBP 546. The date of filing is
not shown but the case was among those transmitted to the newly
created Sandiganbayan; and unfortunately, these records didnt
contain the records of the dismissal of TBP 924.
5. Prosecutor Cruz was assigned to investigate TBP 546 and he
recommended filing of information in January 1990. Special
Prosecution Officer adopted recommendation
6. Hence, an information was filed with the Sandiganbayan, docketed
as Crim. Case 14563.
7. Icasiano filed a motion for reinvestigation on the ground that he has
already been exonerated in Admin. Matter No. MTJ-87-81. Hence,
the court ordered the prosecutor to look into administrative matter
8. Special Prosecutor Querubin responded that there were no records of
such administrative matter. Hence, Sandiganbayan denied motion for
reinvestigation because seeing that the special prosecutor had no

record, petitioner failed to present documents regarding the

administrative matter.
9. Petitioner moved to quash the information on the following grounds:
a. Double jeopardy because he was already exonerated in MTJ87-81
b. No cause of action
c. No jurisdiction
10. Sandiganbayan denied motion to quash:
a. MTJ-87-81 cannot serve as defense for double jeopardy as it
is an admin case and the instant case is criminal
b. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction for violations of Anti Graft
and Corrupts Practices Act.
Issue: W/N double jeopardy applies in this case
Held: Yes. Sandiganbayan should continue proceedings.
1. Distinction between an administrative and criminal case should be
upheld. One is not a bar to the other.
2. An Administrative procedure need not strictly adhere to technical
rules and substantial evidence is sufficient. A Criminal Case in the
Sandiganbayan, although may involve same acts as in the
administrative case, requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
3. To avail of the double jeopardy, the following requisites must
concur:
a. a valid complaint or information;
b. a competent court;
c. a valid arraignment;
d. the defendant had pleaded to the charge; and
e. the defendant was acquitted, or convicted, or the case against
him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
express consent
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The temporary restraining order
issued earlier is LIFTED; the Sandiganbayan is ordered to proceed with
Criminal Case No. 14563.