Nani Perez wants one case junked
By TJ Burgonio
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 07:03:00 05/13/2008
MANILA, Philippines -- Former Justice Secretary Hernando Perez has asked the Sandiganbayan to junk the case of falsification of documents filed against him, saying the alleged offense was already included in another graft case he is facing arising from the $2-million extortion complaint lodged by former Manila Rep. Mark Jimenez.
In a May 9 motion to quash, Perez also asked the antigraft court to cancel the May 23 arraignment on the falsification case.
He argued the information in the case “does not charge any offense,” and even if it did, this had been absorbed by a separate graft case. Neither case can stand alone, Perez said.
He said the separate prosecution of the offenses would expose him to the “possibility of being penalized twice for a single offense.”
Separate cases
Perez is facing separate cases for two counts of graft, robbery and falsification of public documents in the First, Second, Third and Fourth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan.
These stemmed from Jimenez’s charge that the then justice secretary tried to extort $2 million from him in exchange for withdrawing the government’s demand that he disclose the personalities involved in a bribery-tainted power deal in 1998.
It was reported that former President Joseph Estrada was offered $14 million to approve the contract between National Power Corp. and an Argentinian firm to build and run a hydroelectric plant in Laguna.
Perez’s wife Rosario, brother-in-law Ramon Arceo and business associate Ernest Escaler were charged as his co-accused in one case of graft and the robbery case.
In the motion, Perez said the Ombudsman had no authority to file the falsification case and hence the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over it.
He claimed Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez took too much time in preparing the information, hence, she lost the authority to file the case.
“In the instant case, the Ombudsman dragged her feet in the investigation of the cases against the defendant. Thus, while the affidavit-complaint of the private complainant was filed with her on Dec. 23, 2002, it was only nearly six years thereafter that she decided the cases against the defendant,” he said.
|
