15.
Quarto v Marcelo
Topic: 4. Discharge of accused to be state witness & Effect; RA
6770, Sec. 17
 Petitioner, Quarto, is the Chief of the Central Equipment
and Spare Parts Division (CESPD), Bureau of Equipment
(BOE), Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH), Port Area, Manila. As CESPD Chief, he is also the
Head of the Special Inspectorate Team (SIT) of the DPWH.
 Respondents, Tablan et al, are members of the SIT.
 Respondent Marcelo is the Ombudsman
Facts:
1. A committee (DPWH-IA) investigated alleged anomalous
transactions involving the repairs and purchase of spare
parts of DPWH service vehicles.
2. DPWH-IAS discovered, from March to December 2001,
several emergency repairs and purchases of spare parts of
DPWH service vehicles actually did not actually take place.
3. They then filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of
the Ombudsman for Plunder, Money Laundering,
Malversation, and violations of RA No. 3019 and the
Administrative Code, that:
a. Petitioner approved (4) Job orders for ghost non-
existent purchases and repairs to DPWH service
vehicles.
b. Respondent accomplished and signed “Pre-Repair
Inspection” and “Post Repair Inspection Reports”
in support of the four job orders although they
knew that the vehicle was never turned over for
inspection
4. As such, Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan
several informations, however, the Ombudsman granted
respondents' request for immunity
Petitioner filed certiorari questioning the Ombudsman's grant of
immunity. He argues:
a. That in excluding the respondents in the information’s,
the Ombudsman is engaged in "selective prosecution”;
b. According to Sec 17 Rule 119, that respondents as state
witnesses, must first be included first in the information
and the Ombudsman seek approval with the court for
respondents discharge as state witnesses thereafter.
c. Ombudsman’s information fail to show the "absolute
necessity” of repondents testimony and that they are not
"most guilty."
Ombudsman Argue: Section 17, Rule 119 is inapplicable since,
according to RA 6770, decision on who to prosecute is executive
and not a judicial prerogative
Issue:
1. WON Ombudsman should seek court approval in
admitting repondents in information? (NO)
2. WON Ombudsman grave abuse in granting immunity as
state witness to respondents? (NO)
HELD (Dismiss petition on 2 grounds)
 Failure to exhaust all admin remedies- petitioner has not
shown that he moved for a reconsideration prior to filing
certiorari
 Court's policy of non-interference with Ombudsman's
investigatory/prosecutor powers. Petitioner failed to
establish that the grant of immunity to respondents was
with grave abuse of discretion.
Sec 17 Art 6770 states:
“empowers the Ombudsman to grant immunity in
any hearing, inquiry or proceeding being conducted by the
Ombudsman.”
Nature of RA 6770
 While the legislature is the source of the power to grant
immunity, the authority to implement is lodged with
executive.
 RA 6770 of the Ombudsman Act, seek to secure vital
information in the course and for purposes of
prosecution. His findings are not ordinarily subject to
review by the courts except when he gravely abuses such
as in arbitrarily including or excluding persons;
However, RA No. 6770 also in empowering the Ombudsman to
grant immunity, it must take into account Section 17, Rule 119 of
the Rules of Court:
1. There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the
accused whose discharge is requested;
2. There is no other direct evidence available for the
proper prosecution of the offense committed, except
the testimony of said accused;
3. The testimony of said accused can be substantially
corroborated in its material points;
4. Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty;
and
5. Said accused has not at any time been convicted of
any offense involving moral turpitude.
 Court is not a trier of facts and the requirements under
Section 17, Rule 119 is factual in nature. Hence what is
subject to inquiry is Ombudsman's exercise of discretion.
Here petitioner fail to prove clear convincing evidence on
Ombudsman grave abuse of discretion
Absolutely necessary
1. petitioner simply concluded that the requirement of
"absolute necessity" does not exist based on the
Ombudsman's "evidence," without even attempting to
explain
2. Here respondent’s testimony is absolutely necessary given
in their Joint Counter-Affidavit, the respondents narrated
the accused DPWH officials/employees' flagrant disregard
of the proper procedure
Most Gulty
1. petitioner argue the respondents' role in the preparation
of the inspection reports, however, he was silent on the
allegation raised against him with respondents'
explanation
2. In addition, admission to petitioners claim alone not
necessarily cause respondents as most guilty
Administratively guilty
1. The fact that the respondents had previously been found
administratively liable, based on the same set of facts,
does not necessarily make them the "most guilty." An
administrative case is altogether different from a criminal
case
2. Quantum of evidence for administrative case is
“substantial evidence” when criminal proceeding, and the
much stricter standards
As such given RA 6770 and the Constitution, court must respect
the initiative of the Ombudsman