'Blame Ombudsman for dismissal of Nani case'

Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio accused the Office of the Ombudsman yesterday of filing a defective charge sheet against former justice secretary Hernando Perez to cause the dismissal of the robbery and graft charges he was facing before the Sandiganbayan.

“If there were defects in the information filed by our central office, it would be very difficult for us prosecutors to salvage the case,” he told The STAR over the phone.

“And this had happened in many cases before - prosecutors were practically hopeless.”

Villa-Ignacio also said the cases against Perez and three others were filed directly with the Sandiganbayan without passing through the Office of the Special Prosecutor as required under procedures of the anti-graft agency.

“So I had no hand in the cases,” he said.

“They didn’t pass through my office so I was not able to review them.”

The Office of the Special Prosecutor is in charge of cases filed before the Sandiganbayan, he added.

Villa-Ignacio said Office of the Ombudsman officials who prepared the defective charge sheet should be made to explain.

“In cases where the information filed is weak and defective, you could ask the prosecutor at the Ombudsman who crafted it and also those who approved it,” he said.

The STAR learned that Assistant Special Prosecutor Elvira Chua had prepared the charge sheets against Perez, his wife Rosario, brother-in-law Ramon Arceo and business associate Ernest Escaler.

She was also the prosecutor who recommended the dismissal of graft charges against former agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn “Jocjoc” Bolante and 10 others in the alleged misuse of P232 million in fertilizer funds in 2003.

Chua also reportedly prepared the order for the preventive suspension of Bataan Gov. Enrique Garcia Jr. issued by Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Gutierrez.

Officials of the anti-graft agency said they would face the media and answer the allegations today.

Earlier reports said the robbery-extortion charges against Perez dismissed by the Sandiganbayan had already been revised.

The original charge sheet filed by the Office of the Ombudsman last July was reportedly “not complete” since it did not contain the necessary elements in the commission of the alleged crime.

The charge sheet failed to state the element of intent (in the robbery charge), which could have led to an even earlier dismissal of the case.

It was reportedly withdrawn and re-filed.

Last Monday, the first and second divisions of the anti-graft court dismissed the separate graft and robbery/extortion cases against Perez and his co-accused that pointed to lapses of the Office of the Ombudsman in prosecuting the cases.

The second division upheld the argument in the petition of Perez to quash the robbery (extortion) charge because there was “unreasonable delay in the preliminary investigation.”

The anti-graft court ruled that there was “violation of the Office of the Ombudsman in recognizing the constitutional right of the accused to a speedy trial.”

In the graft case, the Sandiganbayan found the factual material allegations in the charge sheet do not constitute the offense as defined in Republic Act 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

“(The anti-graft court) is constrained to quash the said information,” read the decision.

The prosecution failed to present necessary elements that constitute graft, the Sandiganbayan said.