|
OMBUDSMAN Merceditas Gutierrez on Tuesday upheld the
resolution that ordered the filing of criminal charges
against former justice secretary Hernando Perez, his
wife and two others in connection with the $2-million
extortion charge filed by former independent
representative Mark Jimenez of Manila.
In a
24-page order, Gutierrez denied for lack of merit
several motions filed by Perez, including a motion for
reconsideration and a motion to dismiss.
In the
said order, Gutierrez said, “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.”
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
Antigraft and Corrupt Practices Act against Perez, his
wife Rosario, his brother in law Ramon Arceo and
business associate Ernest Escaler before the
Sandiganbayan.
In their
joint resolution, the Ombudsman investigators concluded
that Perez, in conspiracy with Escaler, Arceo and his
wife, Rosario, “took advantage of his position as the
then-Justice secretary by demanding Jimenez to deliver
the amount of $2 million in connection with the
execution of affidavits to be used in the case against
the former President [Joseph] Estrada.”
Gutierrez also ordered the filing of falsification of
public documents (Article 171 of the RPC) charges
against Perez for his nondisclosure in his 2001
Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN) of
the amount of $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
investigators “failed to take judicial notice of the
findings of the Regional Trial Court in Batangas.”
But
Gutierrez denied the said motion, saying, “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 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, the said
affidavit was used by Perez in filing a motion to
dismiss before the Ombudsman.
Gutierrez likewise denied the said motion, saying a
motion to dismiss is a prohibited pleading pursuant to
Sec.4 (d) of Administrative Order 7, which states that
“no motion to dismiss shall be allowed except for lack
of jurisdiction.”
The
order also stated that “an affidavit of desistance
carries no persuasive effect, especially when executed
as an afterthought.”
Jimenez
had accused Perez of extorting $2 million so that he
would stop forcing the former congressman to execute
damaging affidavits against certain individuals in the
administration of former President Joseph Estrada.
In his
complaint-affidavit, Jimenez said 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 Estrada and his cronies and
associates,” he was “forced to come across with $2
million.” |
