MANILA, Philippines—The Office of the Ombudsman has denied that its alleged foot-dragging on the case of former justice secretary Hernando Perez led to the dismissal of the corruption case by the Sandiganbayan.

Assistant Ombudsman Mark Jalandoni said the Ombudsman’s office believes it had a strong case against Perez and would file a motion for reconsideration.

“We believe the case we filed was strong and we do not see any downtime in our proceedings,” Jalandoni told a press briefing Wednesday.

“We respect the decision of the Sandiganbayan but we will explain our side. Hopefully, our appeal will be granted,” Jalandoni said.

The Sandiganbayan 2nd Division, in a ruling dated Nov. 20, dismissed the $2 million extortion and robbery charges against Perez, citing, among other reasons, the six-year delay of the case at the Ombudsman’s Office that it said had violated the rights of the accused.

Not normal practice

Assistant Ombudsman Jose de Jesus Wednesday said the Sandiganbayan should have considered the time it took to conduct a separate fact-finding investigation and preliminary investigation of the Perez case.

Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio, who had no hand in the prosecution of the case, regretted its dismissal and said the Ombudsman should share the blame for the loss.

“That case did not pass through my office and was filed directly with the Sandiganbayan. That is not normal practice,” Villa-Ignacio said.

The case is one of four stemming from a complaint filed in 2002 against Perez by businessman Mark Jimenez who claimed that Perez had extorted money from him in exchange for not being compelled to submit affidavits against deposed President Joseph Estrada, for whom Jimenez had acted as a financial adviser.

The affidavits would have been damaging to Estrada who was accused of accepting bribes in the $470-million power plant deal between the National Power Corp. and Argentina’s Industrias Mtalurgicas Pescarmona Sociedad Anonima (IMPSA) in 1998.

No complainant

Jimenez has withdrawn his complaint but the Ombudsman last April filed four cases before the Sandiganbayan against Perez, his wife Rosario, brother-in-law Ramon Arceo and business associate Ernest Escaler based on the Jimenez complaint.

On Nov. 13, the Sandiganbayan First Division, cleared Perez of graft charges, saying that demanding $2 million from Jimenez did not constitute a violation of the Anti-Graft Law.

Two other cases remain pending with the anti-graft court—one for falsification of public documents and another graft charge for violations of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Government Officials and Employees.

De Jesus Wednesday explained why the fact-finding investigation took 34 months from the time Jimenez filed the case against Perez and the other accused in December 2002.

He said it took that long because of two requests that investigators sent to Swiss and Hong Kong banks for information on the accounts of Perez and his co-accused. The requests were sent in Nov. 2003 and answered only in 20005.

“The documents had to be secured because there has to be evidence that money changed hands. That is needed to strengthen the case,” De Jesus explained.