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 Ombudsman’s 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
Ombudsman’s 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 Ombudsman’s grant of immunity. The
Supreme Court’s room for intervention only occurs when a clear and grave abuse of the
exercise of discretion is shown.