498. Erdito Quarto v. The Hon. Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo, et
al,G.R. No. 169042, October 5, 2011.
Judicial Power - Limits
Facts:
Petitioner Cuarto assailing Ombudsmans grant of immunity to
private respondents, resulting in the respondents exclusion from
the criminal informations filed before the Sandiganbayan. The
petitioner seeks to nullify the immunity granted to the
respondents, and to compel the Ombudsman to include them as accused
in the informations for estafa through falsification of public
documentsand for violation of Section 3(e), Republic Act (RA) No.
3019.
Issue:
WON An immunity statute does not, and cannot, rule out a review
by the Supreme Court of the Ombudsmans exercise of discretion.
Held:
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.
