G.R. No. 155996 ; June 27, 2012
PCGG CHAIRMAN MAGDANGAL B. ELMA and PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Petitioners, vs. REINER JACOBI, CRISPIN REYES, MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, in her capacity as Undersecretary of the Department of Justice, Respondents.

FACTS

The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and its former Chairman, Magdangal Elma, filed a petition for certiorari assailing the resolutions of then Undersecretary of Justice Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, which dismissed their petition for review and found no probable cause for falsification against respondents Atty. Crispin Reyes and Reiner Jacobi. The criminal complaint stemmed from the respondents’ filing of a petition for mandamus with the Sandiganbayan (Civil Case No. 006), where they attached a letter dated August 27, 1998, purportedly signed by former PCGG Chairman Felix M. De Guzman. This “De Guzman letter” confirmed an alleged PCGG agreement to pay Jacobi a ten percent fee for information leading to the recovery of Marcos ill-gotten wealth. The petitioners alleged this letter was falsified, as De Guzman denied authoring or signing it, and the National Bureau of Investigation reported the signature was mechanically reproduced from another document.

ISSUE

Whether the Department of Justice Undersecretary committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for review and finding no probable cause to charge respondents with falsification of public document and use of falsified document.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that a preliminary investigation is an executive function, and its findings are generally not subject to judicial review unless shown to be capricious or whimsical. The DOJ correctly found no probable cause for falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The essential element of making untruthful statements in a narration of facts was absent. The De Guzman letter merely reiterated the contents of prior, admittedly authentic PCGG letters from a former chairman; it did not allege new or false factual assertions. The letter’s core representation—that the PCGG had a prior agreement with Jacobi—was substantiated by the earlier documents. Furthermore, for the separate crime of using a falsified document under Article 172, the DOJ validly considered the lack of malicious intent. The respondents, based on the prior authentic letters, had a legitimate basis to believe in the existence of the agreement they were seeking to enforce through their Sandiganbayan petition. Their act of attaching the letter was in furtherance of a judicial claim, not for a fraudulent purpose. The DOJ’s conclusion that the essential element of intent to gain or cause damage was not established was a reasonable exercise of prosecutorial discretion not tainted by grave abuse.