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 documents and 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.