|
THE
Sandigabayan on Monday ordered the arrest of former
justice secretary Henando Perez, his wife and his
brother-in-law.
At the
same time, the antigraft court issued a hold departure
order against the four.
This as
the Supreme Court (SC) deferred action on the petition
filed by former justice secretary Hernando Perez and his
wife Rosario seeking the “ex-parte” issuance of a
temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the
Ombudsman from pursuing their prosecution before the
Sandiganbayan in connection with the criminal charges
filed against them for allegedly demanding $2 million
from former independent Rep. Mark Jimenez of Manila.
The
arrest warrant against Perez and his wife, Rosario, and
brother in law Ramon Arceo, was just for one of the four
charges in connection with the cases filed by Jimenez.
On April
18, Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez approved the filing
of four criminal charges against Perez and three others
for robbery, while Perez faces more charges of graft and
falsification of public documents.
Also
facing robbery charges is Perez’s business associate
Ernest Escaler.
The
Ombudsman said Perez and his coaccused “took advantage
of his position as the then justice secretary” in
demanding $2 million from Jimenez.
The
charges of falsification of public documents against
Perez stemmed from his alleged 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.
On
October 2 last year, 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.”
Perez
used the affidavit in filing a motion to dismiss before
the Ombudsman two days later.
But
Gutierrez likewise denied the motion, saying a motion to
dismiss is a prohibited pleading pursuant to Section 4
(d) of Administrative Order 7, which states that “no
motion to dismiss shall be allowed except for lack of
jurisdiction.”
Instead
of acting on the Perez couple’s petition, the High Court
ordered the respondents—the Ombudsman and Jimenez—to
comment within 10 days on Perez’s petition.
“After
deliberating on the petition for certiorari with prayer
for issuance of a temporary restraining order or a writ
of preliminary injunction, assailing the joint
resolution dated November 6, 2006, approved on January
5, 2007 and order January 25, 2008 approved on April 15,
2008 by the Ombudsman…the Court, without necessarily
giving due course thereto, resolves to require
respondents to comment on the petition and on the
application for issuance of a temporary restraining
order within 10 days from notice.”
The High
Court issued the resolution as Perez filed a second
supplemental petition reiterating his prayer for the
issuance of a TRO or preliminary injunction or both and
this time impleading the Sandiganbayan as one of the
respondents.
The
petitioners decided to include the antigraft court as
party to the case owing to the latter’s admission that
even if restraint is issued by the Court, the same would
not be binding upon it since it has not been made party
to the case.
“The
Sandiganbayan through its four divisions is acting, in
grave abuse of discretion or, in excess of jurisdiction
because from the pronouncements in open court of the
said divisions the Sandiganbayan appear overly eager to
issue warrants of arrest of the accused without bail for
their subsequent detention and in a manner not only
inconsistent with due process but also with the
differential courtesy due from this Honorable Court,”
the petitioners said in a 21-page supplemental petition.
In their
original petition, the Perezes told the SC that the
Ombudsman acted in excess of its jurisdiction and abused
their right to procedural due process when it eventually
recommended the filing of criminal charges against them
after sitting on the case for five years since 2002.
(With J. San Juan) |
