SC affirms dismissal of Nani Perez extortion case

Former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (AP FILE PHOTO) and former justice secretary Hernando “Nani” Perez (INQUIRER FILE PHOTO)

MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court has affirmed the Sandiganbayan decision dismissing the extortion case against former justice secretary Hernando “Nani” Perez.

In its ruling, the high court, through Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin, took note of the Office of the Ombudsman’s “inordinate delay” in resolving the criminal case filed by former Manila Congressman Mark Jimenez in 2001.

“The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding that there had been inordinate delay in the resolution against respondents [Hernando Perez and several others],” the high court said.

On Nov. 12, 2002, then Congressman Wilfrido Villarama delivered a privilege speech where he revealed acts of bribery by the “US$2 million-dollar man.” A few weeks later, Jimenez delivered a privilege speech identifying Perez as the “US$2 million-dollar man.” Jimenez said Perez allegedly demanded US$2million from Jimenez in exchange for custody under the Witness Protection Program (WPP) and testifying against former President, now Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada.

In December 2002, Jimenez submitted with the Office of the Ombudsman his sworn statement. The Ombudsman’s Special Action Team of the Fact-Finding and Intelligence Research Office (FIRO) was ordered to conduct a probe.

A month later, then Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo approved the recommendation of FIRO to set the complaint for a full blown probe.

The probe at the Office of the Ombudsman took about five years and five months before a case for robbery with intimidation was filed at the Sandiganbayan in 2008.

In 2009, the Sandiganbayan affirmed its 2008 ruling dismissing the case against Perez, his wife Rosario, brother-in-law Ramon Arceo and business associate Ernest Escaler.

“Clearly, the Office of the Ombudsman had taken an unusually long period of time just to investigate the criminal complaint and to determine whether to criminally charge the respondents in the Sandiganbayan. Such long delay was inordinate and oppressive and constituted under the peculiar circumstances of the case an outright violation of the respondents’ right under the Constitution to the speedy disposition of their cases,” the high court said.