498. Erdito Quarto v. The Hon. Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo, et al,G.R. No. 169042, October 5, 2011.

Facts: Ombudsman; Supreme Courts review of Ombudsmans grant of immunity. An immunity statute does not, and cannot, rule out a review by the Supreme Court of the Ombudsmans exercise of discretion. Like all other officials under our constitutional scheme of government, all their acts must adhere to the Constitution. The parameters of the Supreme Court, however, are narrow. In the first place, what the Supreme Court reviews are executive acts of a constitutionally independent Ombudsman. Also, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Since the determination of the requirements under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court is highly factual in nature, the Court must thus generally defer to the judgment of the Ombudsman who is in a better position (than the Sandiganbayan or the defense) to know the relative strength and/or weakness of the evidence presently in his possession and the kind, tenor and source of testimony he needs to enable him to prove his case. It should not be forgotten, too, that the grant of immunity effectively but conditionally results in the extinction of the criminal liability the accused-witnesses might have incurred, as defined in the terms of the grant. This point is no less important as the grant directly affects the individual and enforces his right against self-incrimination. These dynamics should be a constant reminder to the Supreme Court to tread softly, but not any less critically, in its review of the Ombudsmans grant of immunity. The Supreme Courts room for intervention only occurs when a clear and grave abuse of the exercise of discretion is shown.