GR 169042; (October, 2011) (Digest)

G.R. No. 169042; October 5, 2011
ERDITO QUARTO, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN SIMEON MARCELO, CHIEF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR DENNIS VILLA IGNACIO, LUISITO M. TABLAN, RAUL B. BORILLO, and LUIS A. GAYYA, Respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Erdito Quarto, is the Chief of the Central Equipment and Spare Parts Division (CESPD) and Head of the Special Inspectorate Team (SIT) of the DPWH. The respondents, Luisito M. Tablan, Raul B. Borillo, and Luis A. Gayya, are members of the SIT. An investigation by the DPWH Internal Audit Service (IAS) revealed that from March to December 2001, emergency repairs and/or purchases of spare parts for hundreds of DPWH service vehicles, which were approved and paid for by the government, did not actually occur, causing government losses of approximately ₱143 million. Atty. Irene D. Ofilada of the DPWH-IAS filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman charging several DPWH officials and employees, including the petitioner and the respondents, with various offenses. The petitioner was charged with approving job orders and inspection reports for non-existent repairs of a vehicle assigned to Atty. Ofilada. The respondents were charged with signing fictitious Pre-Repair and Post-Repair Inspection Reports for the same non-existent repairs. The petitioner denied the allegations, claiming he merely relied on his subordinates. In contrast, the respondents admitted to the irregularities and offered to testify and provide evidence against other DPWH officials involved in the anomaly in exchange for immunity from prosecution. The Ombudsman granted the respondents immunity through resolutions dated January 7, 2004 and November 4, 2004, resulting in their exclusion from the criminal informations filed before the Sandiganbayan. The petitioner filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus to nullify the grant of immunity and to compel the Ombudsman to include the respondents as accused.

ISSUE

Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in granting immunity from prosecution to the respondents.

RULING

No, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the grant of immunity was within the Ombudsman’s discretionary power under Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989). The law empowers the Ombudsman to grant immunity from criminal prosecution to any person whose testimony or production of evidence is necessary to establish the guilt of other accused. The respondents’ admissions and detailed disclosures regarding the anomalous scheme were deemed necessary to uncover the full extent of the fraud and to prosecute the principal accused. The Court held that the petitioner, as the SIT Chief who approved the falsified documents, was not similarly situated to the respondents, who were subordinate team members. The Ombudsman’s determination that the respondents’ testimonies were indispensable for a successful prosecution was an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, which is generally beyond judicial review absent a clear showing of grave abuse. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Ombudsman’s decision was issued with capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.