Sandigan drops extort rap vs Perez
Ombudsman’s six-year delay in filing case cited
By Jocelyn Uy
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 06:46:00 11/25/2008
Filed Under: Crime and Law and Justice, Graft & Corruption
MANILA, Philippines—Saying the Ombudsman’s six-year delay had violated the rights of the accused, the Sandiganbayan Monday dismissed the $2-million extortion and robbery charges filed against ex-Justice Secretary Hernando “Nani” Perez.
The anti-graft court thus lifted the second of four criminal cases filed in April by the Ombudsman against Perez, his wife Rosario, brother-in-law Ramon Arceo and business associate Ernest Escaler, based on a complaint lodged by former Manila Rep. Mark Jimenez in 2002. Jimenez had since withdrawn his complaint.
Two other cases are pending before the court’s Third and Fourth Divisions—one for falsification of public documents and the other for violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Government Officials and Employees. On Nov. 13, the Sandiganbayan First Division cleared Perez of graft charges.
In junking the extortion and robbery case, the Sandiganbayan wondered why the Ombudsman failed to act immediately when the extortion supposedly happened on Feb. 13, 2001, and that there was a transfer of over $1.9 million to Perez’s Coutts Bank account 10 days later.
Associate Justice Edilberto Sandoval, chair of the Second Division, said the Ombudsman’s failure to act on Perez’s case was a “clear transgression of the constitutional rights of the accused.”
A “healthy respect” for the constitutional rights of the accused should have pushed the Ombudsman to act within a “reasonable time,” he said.
“For such a simple charge of robbery, there is nothing more to consider and all the facts and circumstances upon which to anchor a resolution whether to give due course to the complaint or to dismiss it are on hand,” according to the court’s ruling dated Nov. 20.
In dismissing the graft case against Perez, the First Division had ruled that demanding $2 million from Jimenez did not constitute a violation of Republic Act No. 3019 or the anti-graft law.
The court also noted that a defendant should not be “harassed” with various prosecutions that stem from the same act by splitting it into various charges.
All four cases stemmed from Jimenez’s complaint before the Ombudsman in 2002 in which he claimed Perez had extorted money from him in exchange for not being compelled to submit damaging affidavits against former President Joseph Estrada, whom he had served as a financial adviser.
The affidavits were supposedly in connection with accusations of bribery in the $470-million deal between the National Power Corp. and Industrias Metalurgicas Pescarmona Sociedad Anonima (IMPSA) of Argentina in 1998 to build, rehabilitate and operate a hydroelectric power plant in Laguna.
It was only in April 2008 that the Ombudsman filed the four criminal cases against Perez, despite Jimenez having withdrawn his complaint six months earlier.
Estrada has denied any wrongdoing, claiming the IMPSA contract was finalized four days after he was ousted during the EDSA II revolt which installed President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. This was after Perez as justice secretary had issued the required opinion declaring that the deal was aboveboard.
In his version of events, Perez said the money in question came from the sale of his investment in Malvarosa Ventures Inc.
|
