Ombudsman appeals junking of Nani case

The Office of the Ombudsman yesterday filed motions for reconsideration appealing the decision of the Sandiganbayan junking the cases filed against former Justice Secretary Hernando Perez.

Deputy Special Prosecutor Jesus Micael said they were seeking the reversal of the rulings issued by the First and Second Divisions of the anti-graft court, as there was no inordinate delay in the Ombudsman’s handling of the case and that the money allegedly demanded by Perez from then Manila Rep. Mark Jimenez constitutes graft on the part of Perez.

The Sandiganbayan Second Division handling the robbery case earlier gave weight to Perez’s motion for reconsideration, noting that there was inordinate delay in the filing of the case.

But according to Micael, there was no stop in the investigation done by the Ombudsman, from the fact-finding stage to the preliminary investigation up to the filing of a motion for reconsideration by Perez.

“You could say that the Ombudsman sat on the case if there was a delay, but there was none. You just have to resolve all the issues before filing the case,” Micael said in an interview.

“We are hoping that with this, the court would see this from a different viewpoint,” he said.

As for the graft case pending at the Sandiganbayan First Division, the court ruled that the supposed demand for money could not be considered as exchange for a contract or a transaction, in violation of anti-graft rules.

The supposed demand of Perez for $2 million was for Jimenez turn state’s witness and for Perez to stop forcing Jimenez to execute affidavits against individuals in the Estrada plunder case.

“But a transaction is not only when something is used with monetary consideration,” Micael said.

He said they were even presenting Supreme Court decisions clearly defining what transaction means.