CASE 2019-0024: FREDERICK L. SURIAGA VS. COMMISSIONER ALICIA DELA ROSA-BALA AND ROBERT S. MARTINEZ (G.R. NO. 238191. AUGUST 28, 2019, REYES, A., JR., J.) (SUBJECT/S: IMMUNITY OF WITNESS FROM PROSECUTION)(BRIEF TITLE: SURIAGA VS COMMISSIONER BALA ET AL)

            

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

 

SO ORDERED.”

  

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

SURIAGA SAID HE ASKED BAGUION, WORKING AT BUREAU OF FIRE PROTECTION,  TO SECURE FOR HIM A CIVIL SERVICE ELIGIBILITY AND PAID THE LATTER P25K. WHEN SURIAGA ASKED FOR COPY OF HIS CIVIL SERVICE LIABILITY CSC FOUND OUT THAT HE SUBMITTED FRAUDULENT APPLICATION. INVESTIGATION ENSUED. SURIAGA ADMITTED HIS INFRACTION BUT MOVED THAT HE BE GIVEN IMMUNITY AS HE IS WILLING TO TESTIFY AGAINST BAGUION. CSC DENIED HIS MOTION. IS HE ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY?

 

NO BECAUSE HE IS THE MOST GUILTY.

 

As the party that is clearly the most guilty, having been caught red-handed to have a fraudulent issue with his application, the Court is convinced that Suriaga is not entitled to a grant of immunity as he was unable to show beyond a mere recitation of the requisites that he was eligible for the same. Aside from his self-serving statements, he failed to substantiate his claim that he should be granted immunity and that the CSC erred in denying his claim.

 

SURIAGA SAID IT IS HIS RIGHT TO BE GRANTED IMMUNITY. IS HE CORRECT?

 

HE IS WRONG. THE GRANT OF IMMUNITY IS NOT A RIGHT, BUT AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OR THE PROSECUTION.

 

 As explained in Quarto v. Hon. Ombudsrnan !’vlarcelo, et al. :29 The decision to grant immunity from prosecution forms a constituent part of the prosecution process. It is essentially a tactical decision lo forego prosecution of a person for government to achieve a higher objective. It is a deliberate renunciation of the right of the State to prosecute all who appear to be guilty of having committed a crime. Its justification lies in the particular need of the State to obtain the conviction of the more guilty criminals who, otherwise. will probably elude the long arm of the law. Whether or not the delicate power should be exercised, who should be extended the privilege. the timing of its grant. arc questions addressed solely to the sound judgment or the prosecution. The power to prosecute includes the right to determine who shall be prosecuted and the corollary right to decide whom not to prosecute. In reviewing the exercise of prosccutorial discretion in these areas. the jurisdiction of the respondent court is limited. For the business of a court of justice is to be an impm1ial tribunal, and not to get involved with the success or failure of the prosecution to prosecute. Every now and then. the prosecution may err in the selection of its strategics, but such errors arc not fi1r neutral courts to rectify. any more than courts should correct the blunders of the dcfcnsc. (Citation omitted)

 

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2019-0024-Frederick L. Suriaga Vs. Commissioner Alicia Dela Rosa-Bala and Robert S. Martinez 

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.