PCGG CHAIRMAN MAGDANGAL B.

ELMA and PCGG, petitioners,

vs.
REINER JACOBI, CRISPIN REYES, MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, in her capacity as
Undersecretary of DOJ, respondent.

[G.R. No. 155996. June 27, 2012]

FACTS:

There were several letters showing that there exists agreement between PCGG and respondent
Jacobi entitling the latter of incentive percentage for efforts in recovering ill-gotten wealth of the
Marcoses. Respondent Jacobi filed before the Sandiganbayan thru his counsel Atty. Reyes a
petition for mandamus, prohibition and certiorari (with prayer for injunction) against PCGG for
allegedly re-hiring two trojan horse consultants preventing the enforcement of claims against
the Marcoses. Another similar thrust was filed before the Ombudsman against PCGG in violation
of R.A. No. 3019, with a later manifestation of withdrawing a letter because Jacobi is allegedly
part of said letter. PCGG claimed that said that the letter is a falsified document there being nothing
on their records that such ever existed. PCGG through Chairman Elma filed before the DOJ
criminal complaint under Art.171 par.2 and Art. 172 pars.1 and 3 of RPC against respondents. No
summons were issued to respondents. DOJ found no probable cause on the complaint and the case
was dismissed.

ISSUES:

Remedial Law

1. Whether certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to question the DOJs determination of
probable cause.

a) If it is, where should the petition be filed.

2. Whether the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion.

a) In (i) effectively allowing Jacobi to simultaneously avail of the remedy of a petition for review
and a motion for reconsideration, and (ii) file a second motion for reconsideration.

b) In finding that no probable cause for falsification and use of falsified document exists against
the respondents

RULINGS:

Remedial Law

(1)
(a) No. The respondents are mistaken in their claim that petition for review under Rule 43 is the
proper remedy. By weighing the evidence submitted by the parties in a preliminary investigation
and by making an independent assessment thereof, an investigating prosecutor is, to that extent,
performing functions of a quasi-judicial nature in the conduct of a preliminary investigation.
However, since he does not make a determination of the rights of any party in the proceeding, or
pronounce the respondents guilt or innocence (thus limiting his action to the determination of
probable cause to file an information in court), an investigating prosecutors function still lacks
the element of adjudication essential to an appeal under Rule 43.

As an extraordinary remedy, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court does not require that summons be
issued to the respondent; the service upon him of an order to file its Comment or Memorandum is
sufficient. But it is required that this be filed before the Court of Appeals and not directly to SC
under the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.