GR 155996 Elma vs Jacobi

Facts:

Reiner Jacobi was hired by the PCGG thrrough PCGG Chairman David M. Castro to help the governement go after the Marcos ill-gotten wealth deposited under various Swiss accounts. Several letters were sent by the PCGG Chairman allegedly confirming the agreement regarding the payment. However, when Magdangal Elma replaced Castro as PCGG Chairman, Petitioner began to question the credibility of the agreement alleging that the letters were forged. Jacobi through counsel filed a petition with the Sandiganbayan questioning the actions of Elma. However, during the course of the petition, the counsel for Jacobi withdraw the letters as evidence and Jacobi also changed counsel. On the part of the petitioner, this allegedly showed probable cause that the letters were forged. However the DOJ found no probable cause. The Petitioner questions that finding saying that the DOJ cannot perform that judicial function.

Issue : WON the DOJ erred in finding no probable cause for falsification

Held:

For purposes of filing an information in court, probable cause refers to facts and circumstances sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondents probably committed it. To guide the prosecutor’s determination, a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused; the quantum of proof to establish its existence is less than the evidence that would justify conviction, but it demands more than bare suspicion. No definitive basis to determine probable cause has been established, except to consider the attendant facts and circumstances according to the prosecutor’s best lights. No law or rule states that probable cause requires a specific kind of evidence. No formula or fixed rule for its determination exists. Probable cause is determined in the light of conditions obtaining in a given situation. In going through the process, the prosecutor should carefully calibrate the issues of facts presented to him to the end that his finding would always be consistent with the clear dictates of reason. In the present case, the petitioners rely on the jurisprudential presumption that a holder of a forged document is himself the forger, and should be charged under Article 171, paragraph 2and Article 172, paragraphs 1 and 3of the Revised Penal Code.