ARNOLD JAMES M. YSIDORO, VS. HON. TERESITA J. LEONARDO- DE CASTRO, HON. DIOSDADO M. PERALTA AND HON. EFREN N. DE LA CRUZ, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS PRESIDING JUSTICE AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICES, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, AND NIERNA S. DOLLER.

Ruling

Accordingly, the above error cannot be considered fatal to the right of the People to file its motion for reconsideration. The counting of the 60-day reglementary period within which to file the petition for certiorari will be reckoned from the receipt of the People of the denial of its motion for reconsideration, or on December 10, 2009. As the last day of the 60-day reglementary period fell on February 8, 2010, the petition which was filed on February 5, 2010 was filed on time. Nevertheless, we dismiss the petitions for being procedurally and substantially infirm. A Review of a Judgment of Acquittal Generally, the Rules provides three (3) procedural remedies in order for a party to appeal a decision of a trial court in a criminal case before this Court. The first is by ordinary appeal under Section 3, Rule 122 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. The second is by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules. And the third is by filing a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Each procedural remedy is unique and provides for a different mode of review. In addition, each procedural remedy may only be availed of depending on the nature of the judgment sought to be reviewed. A review by ordinary appeal resolves factual and legal issues. Issues which have not been properly raised by the parties but are, nevertheless, material in the resolution of the case are also resolved in this mode of review. In contrast, a review on certiorari under a Rule 45 petition is generally limited to the review of legal issues; the Court only resolves questions of law which have been properly raised by the parties during the appeal and in the petition. Under this mode, the Court determines whether a proper application of the law was made in a given set of facts. A Rule 65 review, on the other hand, is strictly confined to the determination of the propriety of the trial courts jurisdiction whether it has jurisdiction over the case and if so, whether the exercise of its jurisdiction has or has not been attended by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. While an assailed judgment elevated by way of ordinary appeal or a Rule 45 petition is considered an intrinsically valid, albeit erroneous, judgment, a judgment assailed under Rule 65 is characterized as an invalid judgment because of defect in the trial courts authority to rule. Also, an ordinary appeal and a Rule 45 petition tackle errors committed by the trial court in the appreciation of the evidence and/or the application of law. In contrast, a Rule 65 petition resolves jurisdictional errors committed in the proceedings in the principal case. In other words, errors of judgment are the proper subjects of an ordinary appeal and in a Rule 45 petition; errors of jurisdiction are addressed in a Rule 65 petition. As applied to judgments rendered in criminal cases, unlike a review via a Rule 65 petition, only judgments of conviction can be revie