Sandigan junks Nani motion to dismiss extort case

MANILA, Philippines – The Sandiganbayan denied the petition of former justice secretary Hernando Perez asking the graft court to junk the charges of falsification of public documents filed against him in connection with the $2-million extortion complaint of ex-Manila congressman Mark Jimenez.

In a resolution promulgated last June 6, the court’s third division denied Perez’s motion to quash the charges for lack of merit.

Perez is facing charges of violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (falsification of public documents) before the third division for alleged failure to include in his 2001 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth (SALN) the $1.7 million deposited in the bank account of the former secretary and his wife.

In his motion to quash, Perez had argued that the complaint against him did not charge any offense, or even if it did cannot stand alone from a separate graft charge, and that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction over the case.

But the division, chaired by Associate Justice Francisco Villaruz, rejected his argument and ruled that the information filed by the Ombudsman was sufficient.

The clerk of court said the resolution was forwarded to the court’s sheriff yesterday.

The anti-graft court’s fourth division had earlier denied a separate motion to quash filed by Perez last June 5. The court rejected his arguments, however.

“This court finds that the averments in the information are sufficient. The information states explicitly and directly every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute the offense charged,” it said.

“It is uncontestable that the offenses charged in the two cases are different. They are not under the same law and each consists of a different set of elements needed for the conviction of the accused,” the division added.

Perez alone is facing two other charges in both third and fourth divisions.

In the first and second divisions which are handling charges of graft and robbery-extortion, respectively, Perez has three co-accused: his wife Rosario, brother-in-law Ramon Arceo and business associate Ernest Escaler.

The case stemmed from the complaint of Jimenez that accused Perez of “threatening and intimidating him and his family with bodily harm and incarceration in jail” unless he executes damaging affidavits against President Estrada and his cronies.

Jimenez, who himself was convicted of illegal campaign contributions and jailed in the US, revealed that he deposited the funds for Perez at Coutts Bank, Hong Kong, in February 2001.

“The denial of Perez cannot overcome the positive assertion of Jimenez, more so that the charges were substantiated with convincing evidence,” the Ombudsman said in a 66-page resolution last year, which it upheld recently.

Records showed that Jimenez transferred $2 million on Feb. 23, 2001 to beneficiary account HO133706 to Coutts Bank in Hong Kong. The money came from Trade and Commerce Bank, Cayman Islands through the Chase Manhattan Bank in New York, according to the panel.

“No specific denial was made that Jimenez, in accordance with the instructions of Escaler, did transmit the $2 million to the account, and subsequently, Escaler transmitted the $1.7 million to Arceo-Rosario and the $250,000 to Arceo through a check or bank draft.”

The panel ruled that Escaler, owner of the HK Coutts Bank account that was the initial transferee of the Jimenez fund, gave “no explanation to show that the transfer to his account was the outcome of a legitimate transaction with Jimenez.”

The Ombudsman also said that the Perez couple’s declaration that the funds were proceeds of the sale of their Batangas property, Malvarosa Ventures Inc., to Escaler was inconsistent with an earlier claim by Rosario and Arceo that the money was a family inheritance.

Investigators also said the memorandum of understanding outlining the alleged property transaction between Perez and Escaler was “not notarized” and that it was a “mere private instrument” that did not prove the sale of Malvarosa.

The Ombudsman said the money trail showed “united, concerted and coordinated acts of unlawfully taking the money of Jimenez, which indicate a working conspiracy” among the accused.

“Arceo and Rosario are not strangers to Perez... all of them were privy and their acts were interdependent with each other (and the money was) acquired through illegal means during the incumbency of Perez.”

It was earlier held that Jimenez brokered for the $470-million power contract with Argentine firm Industrias Metalurgicas Pescarmona Sociedad Anonima or IMPSA for which he received $2 million. He denied the allegations.

The Ombudsman ruled that the withdrawal of complaint made by Jimenez did not carry weight as it was “executed as an afterthought.”

But even Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez believes that the case filed before the Sandiganbayan was weak since the prosecution no longer has any witness following the withdrawal of complaint by Jimenez.