C8 133996 Llma vs !

acobl
lacLs:
8elner !acobl was hlred by Lhe CCC Lhrrough CCC Chalrman uavld M. CasLro Lo help Lhe
governemenL go afLer Lhe Marcos lll-goLLen wealLh deposlLed under varlous Swlss accounLs. Several
leLLers were senL by Lhe CCC Chalrman allegedly conflrmlng Lhe agreemenL regardlng Lhe paymenL.
Powever, when Magdangal Llma replaced CasLro as CCC Chalrman, eLlLloner began Lo quesLlon
Lhe credlblllLy of Lhe agreemenL alleglng LhaL Lhe leLLers were forged. !acobl Lhrough counsel flled a
peLlLlon wlLh Lhe Sandlganbayan quesLlonlng Lhe acLlons of Llma. Powever, durlng Lhe course of Lhe
peLlLlon, Lhe counsel for !acobl wlLhdraw Lhe leLLers as evldence and !acobl also changed counsel. Cn
Lhe parL of Lhe peLlLloner, Lhls allegedly showed probable cause LhaL Lhe leLLers were forged. Powever
Lhe uC! found no probable cause. 1he eLlLloner quesLlons LhaL flndlng saylng LhaL Lhe uC! cannoL
perform LhaL [udlclal funcLlon.
lssue : WCn Lhe uC! erred ln flndlng no probable cause for falslflcaLlon
Peld:
lor purposes of flllng an lnformaLlon ln courL, probable cause refers Lo facLs and clrcumsLances
sufflclenL Lo engender a well-founded bellef LhaL a crlme has been commlLLed and LhaL Lhe
respondenLs probably commlLLed lL. 1o gulde Lhe prosecuLor's deLermlnaLlon, a flndlng of probable
cause needs only Lo resL on evldence showlng LhaL, more llkely Lhan noL, a crlme has been commlLLed
and LhaL lL was commlLLed by Lhe accused, Lhe quanLum of proof Lo esLabllsh lLs exlsLence ls less Lhan
Lhe evldence LhaL would [usLlfy convlcLlon, buL lL demands more Lhan bare susplclon.

no deflnlLlve basls Lo deLermlne probable cause has been esLabllshed, excepL Lo conslder Lhe
aLLendanL facLs and clrcumsLances accordlng Lo Lhe prosecuLor's besL llghLs. no law or rule sLaLes LhaL
probable cause requlres a speclflc klnd of evldence. no formula or flxed rule for lLs deLermlnaLlon
exlsLs. robable cause ls deLermlned ln Lhe llghL of condlLlons obLalnlng ln a glven slLuaLlon. ln golng
Lhrough Lhe process, Lhe prosecuLor should carefully callbraLe Lhe lssues of facLs presenLed Lo hlm Lo
Lhe end LhaL hls flndlng would always be conslsLenL wlLh Lhe clear dlcLaLes of reason.

ln Lhe presenL case, Lhe peLlLloners rely on Lhe [urlsprudenLlal presumpLlon LhaL a holder of a forged
documenL ls hlmself Lhe forger, and should be charged under ArLlcle 171, paragraph 2and ArLlcle 172,
paragraphs 1 and 3of Lhe 8evlsed enal Code.
No. The existence of several letters and reports made by the
respondents to the PCGG, shows that the PCGG was at least
aware of the respondents efforts to assist in the recovery efforts
of the government, in general, and of the PCGG, in particular.
Therefore, forging a letter that would simply be evidence of an
implied agreement for those services hardly makes any sense.
Considering the inapplicability of the presumption of authorship
and the dearth of evidence to support the allegation of
conspiracy, much less of evidence directly imputing the forgery
of the De Guzman letter to Jacobi, SC found no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the DOJ in absolving respondent Jacobi.