You are on page 1of 3

PONTEJOS v. ARTICLE VII. Section 1.

Executive Power Examples of Exercise


OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN Valid Exercise (Power to grant
immunity to state witness

FACTS: Preliminary investigation found probably cause


Restituto P. Aquino filed a complaint before the against PONTEJOS for the crimes of estafa,
Ombudsman against Emmanuel T. PONTEJOS direct bribery, and illegal practice of
(arbiter), Wilfredo I. IMPERIAL (regional profession in violation of RA 6713
director), and Carmencita R. ATOS (legal staff)
all officials of Housing and Land Use Consequently, criminal cases of estafa and
Regulatory Board (HLURB), and Roderick Ngo bribery against PONTEJOS were filed before the
(private individual) RTC of Quezon City
Prior to this, ATOY was extended immunity as
Aquino accused PONTEJOS and ATOS of a state witness by the Ombudsman Desierto
conspiring to exact money in exchange for a The Overall Deputy Ombudsman ruled that Atos
favorable decision of a case against NGO should be extended immunity from criminal
then pending in the HLURB prosecution and discharged as state witness
Averred that PONTEJOS acted as his counsel o According to him, ATOS was merely a
during the time when the AQUINO was the subordinate who could have acted only
hearing officer of the case upon the prodding of PONTEJOS
ATOS allegedly received P10,000 in check, o Also, her testimony was necessary to
which was part of the consideration for a build a case against PONTEJOS
favorable decision The Asst. City Prosecutor, after conduction
IMPERIAL was implicated as an alleged reinvestigation, recommended to amend the
accomplice information and include ATOS as accused
reasoning that the power to grant immunity
pertains solely to the courts not the prosecution
which can only recommend ISSUE:
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of discretion when it granted immunity
to Ms. Atos to become a state witness on
almost the same date the Affidavit was
executed and submitted.

HELD:
No.
The decision on whether to prosecute and
whom to indict is EXECUTIVE in character
It is the prosecution that could essentially
determine the strength of pursuing a case
against an accused
PROSECUTORIAL POWERS include
discretion to granting immunity to an
accused in exchange for testimony against
another
Justification of granting immunity: lies in the
particular need of the State to obtain the
conviction of the more guilty criminals
The power to prosecute includes the right to
determine who shall be prosecuted and the
corollary right to decide whom not to
prosecute
SEC. 17 of Rules of Court vested the OMB
with the power to grant immunity from
prosecution

Sec. 17 states that immunity may be


granted when:
a) There is no other direct evidence
available, except testimony of said
accused;
b) Testimony of accused can be
substantially validated in its material
points;
c) Accused does not appear to be most
guilty;
d) Accused not convicted of any offense
involving moral turpitude
Given that the power to grant immunity is
executive, the fact that an individual had not
been previously charged or included in
information does not prevent the prosecution
from utilizing said person as a witness

You might also like