Double standard

Media pressure, more than a “perspicacious” review of the records of the case forced Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez to come out with that ruling against Nani Perez, his wife and two others. At the height of the ZTE-NBN scandal, a number of journalists have openly expressed doubts on her independence and probity because of her wrong action on the Mega Pacific Automated Counting Machine (ACM) Contract dismissing the charges against the Comelec Commissioners, and her inaction on this case of Nani together with the Joc-Joc Bolante fertilizer fund scam, as well as the “Hello Garci” tapes on the 2004 electoral frauds. Hence to prove that she means business and that she is beholden to no one, she chose to indict her former law professor and boss at the Department of Justice in this particular case that has been pending since 2002.

Initially people really took notice of her seemingly fearless and merciless move. Unfortunately on closer scrutiny her sample case has all the more dented her reputation for sincerity and fairness. She chose not only the weakest case but one that is less damaging to people closer to Malacañang.

The whole case against Nani Perez and his co-accused revolves around the alleged extortion of $2 million committed against Mark Jimenez through threats and intimidation. If the Ombudsman and her investigators have really been diligent, discerning and clear sighted (which is the meaning of “perspicacious”) they would have easily seen that their charges are weak and will eventually be dismissed.

In the first place, they no longer have any direct evidence of said extortion because the victim himself, Mark Jimenez, has executed an affidavit of desistance virtually declaring that no such extortion happened. Even if there are sworn statements of alleged eyewitnesses to the supposed incident of threat and intimidation, they are belied by the victim himself thus greatly reducing if not completely obliterating their evidentiary weight.

Secondly the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident of threat and intimidation categorically admitted that the wife of Nani Perez and the two others were not even around during the incident. Hence there is no reasonable ground to implicate them in the extortion.

Thirdly, the investigators even committed falsities on the personal circumstances of Nani Perez and his wife by stating that Ramon Arceo, a co-accused is the brother of Nani’s wife Rosario when they are not related at all by consanguinity.

Fourth, the Ombudsman and her investigators completely relied upon the “due diligence interview” conducted by an “EFG Bank Officer”. Yet the said officer was never identified. Clearly therefore, under existing jurisprudence, the report of said unidentified bank officer is purely hearsay and inadmissible.

Fifth, the Ombudsman and her investigators overlooked or disregarded the letter of Coutts Bank dated November 26, 2002 where the alleged $2 million was deposited. In said letter Coutts Bank categorically declared that it “does not have (nor ever had previously) any business relation” with Perez and “holds no account for you (Perez) either in your name or otherwise as beneficial owner”. This is a vital piece of exculpatory evidence that would show lack of probable cause to indict Perez and his co- accused.

Sixth, another vital piece of exculpatory evidence showing lack of probable cause is the very Field Investigation Report of the Ombudsman Investigator stating that the allegedly $2 million is the consideration of the sale of real properties of companies owned by the Perez family under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Perez and his co-accused Escaler, that was already cancelled. Hence the report itself says that the said $2 million had already been reverted back to Escaler.

Indeed perspicacity should have convinced the Ombudsman that there are no reasonable grounds to believe the existence of extortion in this case, and that if there is no extortion, there is no such $2 million to even look into, paper trail or no paper trail.

With these facts the eventual exoneration of Nani Perez, his wife and other co-accused seem inevitable. It is thus quite unfair especially to Nani’s wife that they are now exposed to this adverse, unnecessary and undue publicity. And more unfair is the insinuation by some quarters that they will be acquitted mainly because this is the arrangement with Malacañang.

In any case the Ombudsman’s action against Nani Perez and his co-accused has some positive aspects. More than giving Nani Perez and his co-accused the chance to finally vindicate themselves in the proper forum, the Ombudsman has set some sort of a standard of perspicacity in reviewing the records of the cases pending before it.

If the Ombudsman were as perspicacious in reviewing the records of the case against Nani Perez, then it should also keenly look into what happened in the IMPSA deal and who are involved therein. Its continued silence and attempt to isolate the Perez case from the IMPSA deal where it originated, shows that the Ombudsman is protecting a bigger fish.

Using the same standards, the Ombudsman should have also filed the proper charges against then Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos and other Commissioners in the Mega Pacific ACM contract where no less than the Supreme Court found that the bid was awarded to a non-participant and later on the contract was signed with a participant which did not win the bid precisely because it had no eligibility requirement. By now it should also have already indicted the ex- Comelec Chairman Abalos in the ZTE-NBN contract based on Neri’s testimony about the P200 million bribe offer that was even relayed to the President. Long overdue also are the charges against Joc Joc Bolante and other personalities involved in the fertilizer fund scam.

The Ombudsman’s continued inaction on these cases only bolsters the long held suspicion that she using double standard of justice to protect a very important person who was instrumental in her appointment as Ombudsman. This in itself constitutes an impeachable offense of graft and corruption.

E-mail us at [email protected]