Sandiganbayan affirms Nani acquittal

MANILA, Philippines - Citing the long delay in the filing of the complaint, the Sandiganbayan affirmed yesterday its dismissal of the criminal case against former justice secretary Hernando Perez on allegations of extortion by former Manila congressman Mark Jimenez in 2001.

The anti-graft court’s Second Division led by Associate Justice Edilberto Sandoval denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration of its Nov. 20, 2008 ruling dismissing the complaint against Perez and the other accused – 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.

Perez, accompanied by Escaler, allegedly threatened to send Jimenez to jail if he would not make any damaging statements against Estrada.

Ten days later, Jimenez transferred $1.999.965 to an account owned by Escaler at the Coutts Bank of Hong Kong allegedly to pay off Perez.

The court noted Jimenez filed his complaint only on Dec. 23, 2002 while the Office of the Ombudsman filed the charge later on April 18, 2008.

“The complainant had hesitated in filing his complaint for about 18 months while the Ombudsman with double hesitation dilly-dallied for about six years,” the Sandiganbayan said.

“All in all, the delay from the supposed commission of such a simple offense of robbery took more than seven years,” the court said.

The anti-graft court said the Ombudsman should have asked Jimenez for a reasonable explanation as to why he filed the robbery complaint 18 months after the alleged commission of the crime.

Jimenez explained that he thought Perez would stop threatening him after the payoff “and would leave him in peace for good.”

But with or without ill-motive, the anti-graft court said the Ombudsman should have acted within reasonable time.

The court also rejected the prosecution’s claim that there were supposed legal impediments which is why they delayed the filing of the charges.

“The court cannot understand those alleged legal impediments in the prosecution for robbery. Here is the prosecution claiming strongly that the filing of the complaint was not attended by ill motive and that after the payoff even if a crime has been committed against the complainant… the latter delayed his filing of the complaint.”

The court said such claims could not qualify as a legal impediment.

The Sandiganbayan also rejected the prosecution’s argument that a fact-finding investigation had to be conducted before charges are filed in court.

The court noted it took the prosecution six years to conduct a fact-finding investigation “and then unabashedly it argues that it is not part of the preliminary investigation.”

“Determining probable cause should usually take no more than 90 days precisely because it only involves finding out whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the persons charged could be held for trial or not,” the court said.

The court also said it is denying the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration of its earlier decision dismissing the robbery case against Perez for lack of merit.

Deputy Special Prosecutor Jesus Micael, however, said the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) would elevate the issue before the Supreme Court.