MANILA, Philippines — Former Arroyo administration justice secretary Hernani Perez and a businessman have lost their bids before the Supreme Court to dismiss their forfeiture case over alleged extortion of $2 million from the late Manila congressman Mark Jimenez, clearing the way for the continuation of trial.
The SC had earlier upheld the dismissal of Perez and businessman Ernest Escaler’s extortion and robbery cases due to inordinate delay, but the anti-graft court denied their petitions to dismiss the forfeiture cases.
“Although the criminal cases in People v. Sandiganbayan and the forfeiture proceeding involve similar parties, it bears stressing that their causes of action and respective issues are different. Forfeiture proceedings are civil in nature. While the forfeiture proceeding here emanated from the same set of facts as the criminal cases in People v. Sandiganbayan, it is nevertheless separate and distinct,” the SC said.
The forfeiture case was a result of the alleged extortion of $2 million from Jimenez. The Office of the Ombudsman’s findings showed that the pair had extorted the former congressman in 2001 in exchange for their silence in the plunder case against former president Joseph Estrada.
While Jimenez reportedly retracted his allegations in the course of the probe, the ombudsman decided to proceed with the filing of complaints as bank records and money trail show that the former justice secretary failed to declare huge sums of money in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) for 2001 and 2002.
The SC, in denying the pair’s petitions, explained that the criminal cases hinged on their alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the provision on robbery under the Revised Penal Code.
In contrast, their forfeiture cases were a result of Perez’s alleged unlawful acquisition of properties that did not correspond to his SALN during his tenure as secretary of the Department of Justice.
On Escaler’s petition, the SC explained that the Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its discretion in allowing the forfeiture case to go to trial since the ombudsman has the authority to file for forfeiture and that they were able to conduct a preliminary investigation before filing the case before the anti-graft court.