Thursday, April 17, 2008 Ombud maintains extortion raps v. ex-justice chief
THE Office of the Ombudsman will file with the Sandiganbayan extortion and other criminal charges against former justice secretary Hernando Perez, his wife and two others.
This developed as the anti-graft body upheld last Wednesday its earlier resolution ordering the filing of criminal charges against Perez, his wife Rosario, brother-in-law Ramon Arceo and business associate Ernest Escaler in connection with the US$2-million extortion complaint filed by former Manila congressman Mark Jimenez.
In an order, Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez denied for lack of merit several pleadings filed by Perez, including a motion for reconsideration and a motion to dismiss.
"After a perspicacious review of the records, the undersigned found nothing that would indicate that there is reason to disturb the earlier findings of the Special Panel," Gutierrez said.
In January last year, Gutierrez ordered the filing of charges of extortion (Article 294 in relation to Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code), and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act 3019) against Perez and the three others before the anti-graft court.
The ombudsman, in a joint resolution, concluded that Perez conspired with his fellow respondents in taking "advantage of his position as the then DOJ (Department of Justice) secretary by demanding Jimenez to deliver the amount of US$2 million in connection with the execution of affidavits to be used in the case against former President Joseph Estrada."
The anti-graft body also ordered the filing of a charge of Falsification of Public Documents (Article 171 of the RPC) against Perez for his non-disclosure in his 2001 statement of assets, liabilities and networth (SALN) of the amount of US$1.7 million deposited in his and his wife's bank accounts.
Perez, his wife, and Arceo had filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that the ombudsman "failed to take judicial notice of the findings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas" involving the same incident.
In denying the motion for reconsideration, the ombudsman said: "The ruling of the trial court finding the public utterances or remarks of Jimenez as derogatory could not affect the criminal complaints pending before the Office of the Ombudsman."
On October 2, 2007, Jimenez executed an affidavit of desistance to "withdraw and dismiss unconditionally and with prejudice all the charges against the respondents in the above-entitled cases." Two days after, Perez used the said affidavit in filing a motion to dismiss before the ombudsman.
Gutierrez likewise denied the motion, saying a motion to dismiss is a prohibited pleading pursuant to Section 4 (d) of Administrative Order (AO) 7, which states "no motion to dismiss shall be allowed except for lack of jurisdiction."
The order also stated: "an affidavit of desistance carries no persuasive effect, especially when executed as an afterthought."
Jimenez had accused Perez of extorting US$2 million so that he would stop forcing the former congressman to execute damaging affidavits against certain individuals in the Estrada administration.
In his complaint-affidavit, Jimenez stated that because Perez "threatened and intimidated me and my family with bodily harm and incarceration in a city jail with hardened criminals and drug addicts unless I execute damaging affidavits against President (Joseph) Estrada and his cronies and associates", he was "forced to come across with US$2 million". (Sunnex)
