MANILA, Philippines -- The lawyer for former Justice Secretary Hernando “Nani” Perez has alleged that Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez filed a string of graft charges against Perez to preempt an impeachment case against her.

Ruben Fruto argued before the Sandiganbayan Second Division on Tuesday that the filing of four charges against Perez in connection with an extortion complaint filed by former Manila Rep. Mark Jimenez against him was “motivated by malice.”

“This was hurriedly filed to preempt the filing of an impeachment case by Atty. Harry Roque against the Ombudsman for her failure to resolve several complaints pending against prominent personalities in government,” he claimed.

He said that Gutierrez “conveniently chose” Perez, who had quit the Arroyo Cabinet.

Unaware

Government prosecutor Rodrigo Coquia denied Fruto’s argument, and said the prosecutors were not aware that an impeachment complaint was to be filed against the Ombudsman.

Fruto and Coquia appeared for oral arguments on Perez’s motion to reconsider the court’s denial of an earlier motion to quash the robbery charge.

Charged with Perez were his wife Rosario, brother-in-law Ramon Arceo, and business associate Ernest Escaler.

Apart from this, the former Secretary is also facing charges for two counts of graft and falsification of public documents in three other divisions of the anti-graft court.

Fruto also said another proof that the charges were filed with malice was the fact that the Ombudsman had named Arceo as one of the accused, but in the same breath named one Romeo Arceo as the one who committed the crime.

Affidavit of desistance

On top of this, the Ombudsman filed two separate charges (robbery and graft) for Perez’s alleged act of demanding money, and proceeded to file the charges even after Jimenez filed an affidavit of desistance.

Fruto also argued that the Ombudsman committed an “inordinate delay” in filing the charges, depriving Perez of “his right to due process.”

He said that after Jimenez’s complaint was referred to a panel of investigators in July 2003, nothing was heard from the Ombudsman until November 2005 when the respondents were ordered to file counter-affidavits.

Then in January 2007, the Ombudsman’s investigation panel recommended the filing of the information, and 15 months later, in April 2008, denied the respondents’ motion for reconsideration.

Fruto said this smacked of the “siyempre (of course) doctrine.” “Kung gusto, siyempre may paraan. Kung ayaw, siyempre may dahilan (If one wants to do something, of course there is a way; if one doesn’t want to do something, of course there is a reason),” he said.

The division chair, Justice Edilberto Sandoval, said: “There was delay, but not inordinate delay.” He then asked the prosecutor to reply to the defense argument.

We did our duty

Coquia argued that the Ombudsman exercised due diligence in its investigation of the case, and spent much of its time gathering relevant documents from Switzerland and Hong Kong.

“We did our duty,” he said. “The time consumed was justified.”

The prosecutor also disagreed with the defense argument that the robbery case should be dismissed, or if not, should be consolidated with the graft case pending before the First Division, saying these cases could “stand on their own.”

The motion was deemed submitted for resolution.

All the cases stemmed from charges that Perez had tried to extort $2 million from Jimenez, a businessman, in exchange for his non-disclosure of personalities involved in a bribery scandal that attended a power plant deal in 1998.