Nani petition to quash extort case vs him denied

MANILA, Philippines – The Sandiganbayan has rejected the petition of former justice secretary Hernando Perez and his co-accused to quash the extortion case filed against them by former Manila representative Mark Jimenez.

In a five-page resolution last June 26, anti-graft court’s second division said there is merit in the argument of Perez that the court has no jurisdiction over the case since the Office of the Ombudsman had no authority to file the information after Jimenez had withdrawn his complaint.

“The supposed public admission of the Ombudsman that the offenses involving the accused were politically tainted, has not been shown nor proven,” read the decision.

“Since this is the premise upon which the motion concludes, rather erroneously that the claimed delay in filing the information effectively divested her of the authority to file the said information, the Court cannot accord any affirmative relief to the prayer of the movants.”

The pre-trial of the extortion case against Perez, his wife Rosario, brother-in-law Ramon Arceo and business associate Ernest Escaler  must proceed on June 30, the anti-graft court said.

Other divisions of the Sandiganbayan had also dismissed separate motions to quash graft and falsification charges against Perez.

Perez is facing charges of violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (falsification of public document) before the Sandiganbayan’s third division for supposedly failing to disclose $1.7 million in his and his wife’s bank accounts in his 2001 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth (SALN).

Last June 5, the anti-graft court’s fourth division also denied a separate motion to quash filed by Perez.

“This court finds that the averments in the information are sufficient,” read the decision.

“The information states explicitly and directly every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute the offense charged.

“It is uncontestable that the offenses charged in the two cases are different. They are not under the same law and each consists of a different set of elements needed for the conviction of the accused.”

Perez alone is facing two other charges in both third and fourth divisions.

In the first and second divisions, Perez and three co-accused face graft and robbery-extortion charges.

Jimenez had accused Perez of threatening and intimidating him and his family with bodily harm and imprisonment with hardened criminals and drug addicts unless he executes damaging affidavits against ousted President Joseph Estrada and his associates.

Records showed Jimenez transferred $2 million on Feb. 23, 2001 in beneficiary account HO133706 to Coutts Bank in Hong Kong.

The money came from Trade and Commerce Bank, Cayman Islands through the Chase Manhattan Bank in New York, according to investigations.

The Office of the Ombudsman said the Perez couple’s declaration that the funds were proceeds of the sale of their Batangas property to Escaler was inconsistent with an earlier claim by Rosario and Arceo that the money was a family inheritance.

The memorandum outlining the alleged property transaction between Perez and Escaler was “not notarized” and that it was a “mere private instrument” that did not prove the sale of Malvarosa, investigators added.

The Office of the Ombudsman said the money trail showed “united, concerted and coordinated acts of unlawfully taking the money of Jimenez, which indicate a working conspiracy” among the accused.

The decision was written by Associate Justice Edilberto Sandoval, Sandiganbayan second division chairman.