MANILA, Philippines?For the second time in two months, the Sandiganbayan?s Fourth Division has junked former Justice Secretary Hernando ?Nani? Perez?s bid to have a case for alleged unethical practices against him dismissed.

The case is in connection with his alleged extortion of $2 million from former Manila Rep. Mark Jimenez in 1998.

In rejecting his motion for reconsideration, the Fourth Division upheld its earlier ruling junking Perez? two motions to dismiss the charges of unethical practices against him for his alleged failure to declare some $1.7 million in his statement of assets and liabilities.

The undeclared amount supposedly came from the alleged extortion.

The allegations of extortion by Jimenez, which he later withdrew, led to the filing of graft and robbery charges against Perez, his wife Rosario, brother in law Ramon Arceo and businessman Ernest Escaler.

The Ombudsman also filed another graft case as well as falsification charges against Perez.

The Sandiganbayan?s First Division had earlier dismissed the graft charges against Perez, while the Second Division junked the robbery charges.

In his earlier motions to dismiss, Perez argued that since his other cases had been dismissed, the Fourth Division should likewise dismiss the pending case.

But the court junked both motions in a resolution on Jan. 30.

In asking the court to reconsider its ruling, Perez accused the prosecution of ?forum shopping? for ?splitting into several charges what arose from a single act.?

He told the court he was also facing falsification charges in the Third Division, a case which had the same set of facts as the one pending in the Fourth Division.

Since the cases ?came from a single alleged act, there should have been a single information filed against the accused,? Perez said.

However, the court said ?a single act can very well give rise to several crimes for which separate prosecutions for each crime may be filed.?

The court also said that if several crimes from the same incident involved common questions of law and fact, this should be a ?ground for the consolidation of the case, not for dismissal.?

The Fourth Division reiterated its Jan. 30 ruling that the falsification case in the Third Division, the robbery charges in the Second Division, and the pending case in the Fourth Division ?do not pertain to the same single act.?