Sandiganbayan affirms dismissal of raps vs Nani

MANILA, Philippines - The Sandiganbayan has affirmed the dismissal of the graft charge against former justice secretary Hernando Perez on allegations of extortion by former Manila congressman Mark Jimenez in 2001.

In a nine-page decision, the Sandiganbayan’s Third Division affirmed the Nov. 13, 2008 ruling of the First Division, citing the prosecution’s failure to prove the alleged offense was committed under the provisions of the anti-graft law.

The anti-graft court denied the motion for reconsideration on the ruling to dismiss the complaint against Perez and the other accused, including his wife Rosario, brother-in-law Ramon Arceo and business associate Ernest Escaler.

The case stemmed from the graft charge in April 2008, alleging that Perez demanded US$2 million from Jimenez in exchange for custody under the Witness Protection Program (WPP) and his testifying against former President Joseph Estrada in a plunder case.

The prosecution said Perez violated the anti-graft law by “directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the government and any other part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity had to intervene under the law.”

But the Sandiganbayan’s First Division, then chaired by Presiding Justice Diosdado Peralta said the term “contract” as defined by the anti-graft law only refers to government transactions.

Peralta said Perez’s alleged act of asking money from Jimenez does not constitute a government contract, otherwise it should have been an offense under Section 3(b) of Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft law.

The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration of the ruling, which was passed on to the Third Division after Peralta was appointed to the Supreme Court.

In its ruling dated April 21, 2009, the Third Division led by Associate Justice Francisco Villaruz Jr. upheld the First Division’s decision dismissing the charges based on a defective charge sheet.

The court ruled in favor of Perez who even argued that the charge against him should be direct bribery as defined by Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code.  

Deputy Special Prosecutor Jesus Micael of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), on the other hand, said they would appeal the case before the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari.

Micael explained the petition would focus on the legal question whether the word “transaction” was misinterpreted by the Sandiganbayan.

Micael said the SC has yet to issue a “clear-cut ruling” on how the term “transaction” under RA 3019 should be interpreted.

“We can at least enrich jurisprudence on the anti-graft law,” Micael told The STAR.

He maintained the word “transaction” does not only refer to commercial connotation but also in cases like how Perez allegedly asked for $2 million in exchange for a deal.

Micael stressed the petition for certiorari seeks to correct possible errors committed by a lower court arising from grave abuse of discretion.

Micael argued RA 3019 in its entirety would show that the term “transaction” is not confined to transactions involving financial consideration.

He said the legislative intent of the law clearly showed “transaction” extends to any dealing with the government.