A.M. No. P-24-140 - Gonzales vs. Geronimo

Petitioner Erdito Quarto is the Chief of the Central Equipment and Spare Parts Division (CESPD), Bureau of Equipment (BOE), Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), and Head of the Special Inspectorate Team (SIT).
Respondents Luisito M. Tablan, Raul B. Borillo, and Luis A. Gayya are members of the SIT.
The Ombudsman and Chief Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio are respondents as well.

On January 9, 2002, DPWH Secretary Simeon Datumanong created a committee to investigate alleged anomalous transactions involving repairs and purchase of spare parts of DPWH service vehicles in 2001.
The DPWH Internal Audit Service (IAS) was designated to conduct the technical investigation.
Procedure for emergency repairs and purchase of spare parts involved inspections by SIT with supporting documents such as Job Orders, Pre- and Post-Repair Inspection Reports, Requisition for Supplies and Equipment (RSE), Canvass Quotation, and Certificates of Emergency Purchase and Fair Wear and Tear.

From March to December 2001, numerous emergency repairs and purchases were approved and paid for but did not actually occur. Government losses approximated P143 million in this period.
Atty. Irene D. Ofilada of DPWH-IAS filed Complaint-Affidavits before the Ombudsman charging several officials, including petitioner and respondents, with plunder, money laundering, malversation, and violations of RA No. 3019 and the Administrative Code.

Petitioner was accused of dishonesty and grave misconduct for approving job orders and inspection reports authorizing payment for repairs never actually done.

The respondents, as SIT members, accomplished and signed pre- and post-repair inspection reports falsely indicating that service vehicles were inspected prior to and after repairs, although they knew no actual inspection took place.
Their reports enabled preparation of requests for supplies that formed the basis for disbursements, causing prejudice to DPWH.
Respondents admitted irregularities and offered themselves as state witnesses in exchange for immunity, detailing widespread violations of procedures and pressures to sign falsified reports.

The Ombudsman filed several criminal informations against DPWH officials, including petitioner, for plunder, estafa through falsification of documents, and violations of RA No. 3019.
The Ombudsman granted immunity from prosecution to respondents in exchange for their testimonies and cooperation.
The petitioner filed a certiorari petition to include respondents as accused, which was dismissed by the Sandiganbayan for lack of jurisdiction, prompting the present petition to this Court.

Petitioner contends respondents' criminal complicity is clear since no repairs or payments could have occurred without their inspection reports.
Claims Ombudsman's exclusion of respondents constitutes selective prosecution and grave abuse of discretion.
Argues respondents should first be charged before being considered for discharge as state witnesses as mandated by Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court.
States respondents fail conditions for discharge as they appear to be the "most guilty."

Ombudsman asserts power to grant immunity under RA No. 6770 is exclusive and independent of the Rules of Court procedure.
Defends non-inclusion of respondents citing prosecutorial discretion and the policy of non-interference by courts.
Respondents emphasize Ombudsman’s discretion in determining inclusion and immunity, and the lack of demonstrated grave abuse by petitioner.

Whether the Court should nullify the Ombudsman’s grant of immunity to the respondents and compel inclusion of respondents as accused in the criminal informations.

Whether the conditions required under Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court for granting immunity and discharge as state witnesses apply to the Ombudsman’s grant of immunity before filing informations.

Whether the Ombudsman gravely abused his discretion in granting immunity to respondents despite their admitted involvement in the anomalous transactions.