$2-M EXTORTION RAPS VS NANI TO BE PURSUED; WHY NOT PLUNDER?

$2-M EXTORTION RAPS VS NANI TO BE PURSUED; WHY NOT PLUNDER?

MANILA, APRIL 18, 2008 (STAR) By Edu Punay -The Ombudsman upheld yesterday the filing of criminal charges against former justice secretary Hernando Perez, his wife, and two others in connection with allegations that they extorted $2 million from former Manila Rep. Mark Jimenez.

The case was the first major corruption scandal under the Arroyo administration, and the first involving a Cabinet secretary.

Giving weight to the money trail, the Ombudsman denied for lack of merit attempts by Perez to have the charges dismissed after Jimenez withdrew his complaint.

Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez also ordered that Perez be charged with falsification of public documents for his non-disclosure in his 2001 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth (SALN) of his and his wife’s $1.7-million bank deposits.

Charged with Perez before the Sandiganbayan for extortion and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or Republic Act 3019 are his wife Rosario, brother-in-law Ramon Arceo and business associate Ernest Escaler.

“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.

“An affidavit of desistance carries no persuasive effect, especially when executed as an afterthought,” the Ombudsman ruled.

Gutierrez worked as Perez’s undersecretary when he was the justice secretary in 2001.

The anti-graft body reiterated its original findings issued on Jan. 8, 2007 justifying the filing of criminal cases against the four.

The special Ombudsman panel concluded that Perez, “in conspiracy with Escaler, Arceo, and his wife Rosario, took advantage of his position as the then DOJ 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 Estrada.”

Perez had asked the Ombudsman to reconsider its ruling saying it “failed to take judicial notice of the findings of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas.”

In rejecting Perez’s motion, the Ombudsman explained that “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 Oct. 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 later, Perez filed a Motion to Dismiss, which Gutierrez also rejected.

In denying the motion, the Ombudsman cited Sec.4 (d) of Administrative Order No. 7, which stipulates that “no motion to dismiss shall be allowed except for lack of jurisdiction.”

In his complaint-affidavit, Jimenez claimed he was “forced to come across with $2 million” after 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.”

Jimenez, who himself was jailed in the US for illegal campaign contribution, revealed that he deposited the funds in 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.

Records showed that Jimenez transferred $2 million on Feb. 23, 2001 in 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 cheque 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 Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism said that four days after the Arroyo government came to power in 2001, Perez issued a ruling that paved the way for IMPSA’s bagging the controversial rehabilitation of the Caliraya-Botocan-Kalayaan hydropower plant in Laguna.

'Why not plunder vs Nani?' By Aurea Calica Friday, April 18, 2008

Some critics may have been placated by the Ombudsman’s decision to pursue graft and extortion charges against former justice secretary Hernando Perez, but they still want an explanation as to why he was not charged with the more serious and non-bailable offense of plunder.

Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. praised the Ombudsman for its decision to charge Perez in court but demanded a “satisfactory” explanation as to why he was not charged with plunder considering that the $2 million involved was more than P100 million at the time the alleged offense was committed.

The charges against Perez, his wife Rosario, brother-in-law Ramon Arceo and business associate Ernest Escaler stemmed from allegations by former Manila congressman Mark Jimenez that the accused extorted $2 million from him in 2001.

Sen. Panfilo Lacson, for his part, dared Perez to name the other officials who allegedly received $12 million in bribes for the approval of the government’s power contract with Argentine firm Industrias Metalurgicas Pescarmona Sociedad Anonima or IMPSA.

Pimentel said the Ombudsman’s decision on Perez would help dispel the widespread impression that the anti-graft body was covering up anomalies involving administration officials.

Pimentel said that although the decision to elevate the case to the Sandiganbayan came quite late, Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez should be credited for going after Perez, who was her superior at the Department of Justice when she was an undersecretary.

“This is good for the Ombudsman, bad for Nani. But only events will prove whether this is real or not,” the minority leader said.

For Lacson, the Ombudsman needs to do more to erase doubts on its impartiality.

“The government just netted a big fish, albeit dried fish in ex-secretary Nani Perez. There is, however, a need for the Ombudsman to quell speculation that there is double standard of justice in the Philippines – one for allies and cohorts of the administration and another for political foes,” Lacson said.

“Perez has one last remaining opportunity to redeem himself though. He must now tell the Filipino people who partook of $12 million of the $14 million bribe in the 2001 IMPSA deal. In case he has forgotten, he only has to remember where the $4 million, $1 million and $7 million went,” Lacson noted.

Sen. Francis Escudero also challenged the Ombudsman to prove that the ruling was not just for show as he also questioned why Perez was charged only with violation of the anti-graft law and not with plunder.

It was earlier held that Jimenez brokered the $470-million power contract with IMPSA, but he denied the allegations.

Escudero argued there was nothing laudable about the Ombudsman’s decision.

“I can’t understand why it took so long to come out with the ruling,” Escudero said.

He decried that former President Joseph Estrada was charged with plunder for almost the same offense as Perez’s.

“The (case of Estrada) also involved bribery, extortion. How come in the case of a former ally of President Arroyo, the charges were simply extortion and graft?” Escudero asked.

Escudero said Estrada’s case involved jueteng money, not people’s money, unlike in the case of Perez.

“The decision should be the same, right? It is clear that there is double standard, it is clear that someone is being favored,” Escudero said.

“There is nothing more amusing than the time spent for the Ombudsman to decide,” Escudero said.

Escudero said the documentary evidence was strong and was provided by foreign countries and that these should have bolstered the case against Perez and his cohorts.

“There can be no doubt because the (banks) are not being run by Filipinos who might be suspected of having their own interests in pinning down an ally of the President,” Escudero said.

Escudero said the government’s line that there would be no sacred cows among its officials had always been just lip service.

“I expect those who filed the case to seek a reconsideration of the findings of the Ombudsman. The only drawback is that this will delay the filing of the case before the Sandiganbayan. There should be equal treatment, if it’s more than P50 million, it must be plunder whoever is hit, whether enemies of the government or not,” Escudero said.

Meanwhile, Estrada called Perez’s legal plight “bad karma.”

“When he (Perez) was still the justice secretary, he had been talking to everybody to testify against me. He even told them that he was able to jail their president, he can also do it to them once they did not testify,” Estrada said at a press conference at Club Filipino. He said the filing of the case against Perez was long overdue, considering the strong evidence against him and the other accused.

“The evidence is very strong. It came from the Swiss Bank. The Ombudsman was furnished by some senators all the documents for money laundering and that should have been not only graft and corruption, but plunder because the plunder law says that P50 million above, you will be charged with plunder and that is $2 million,” Estrada said.

“He was a former justice secretary and these people (in the Ombudsman) are under him before. Merceditas Gutierrez was under Perez when she was the undersecretary of justice,” Estrada said.

“I learned that she’s also a classmate of the First Gentleman. Well, to cut the story short, he is a former Cabinet member, close to the President, that is why it took them a long time to decide, to file these charges against him,” Estrada said.

Graft case weak sans MJ

Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez said Jimenez’s refusal to testify could weaken the government’s extortion case against Perez.

Gonzalez said the case had in fact weakened after Jimenez’s withdrawal of his complaint in October last year.

“Jimenez’s decision to withdraw his complaint against Perez has weakened the case, unless new evidence are presented,” Gonzalez said.

“The fact that he (Jimenez) is withdrawing, he is unwilling to testify. It will certainly affect the prosecution’s case. You cannot prove the case with mere documents alone,” Gonzalez said.

“If he (Jimenez) no longer wants to push this case, he might not appear in court to testify. It will weaken the prosecution’s case,” Gonzalez added.

Malacañang, meanwhile, reiterated that the Ombudsman’s decision demonstrates the impartiality of the administration.

“We can see here that even if those being charged are close or perceived to be close to the President, the administration pays no favors,” Palace deputy spokesperson Anthony Golez said in Filipino.

“As long as it goes through the right processes such as the courts, let those who have to be punished be punished and those who have committed no wrong acquitted,” he added.

The Palace has vowed not to interfere in the case of Perez in spite of his being a close ally of the President.

Deputy presidential spokesperson Lorelei Fajardo said that the President was apparently unperturbed by the turn of events involving Perez.

“The President is just focused on her day-to-day activities. The President has a lot of important things to do, especially in ensuring that the distribution of rice reaches its intended beneficiaries,” Fajardo said.

Fajardo emphasized that the case filed against Perez would provide him an opportunity to defend himself in a proper forum.

Golez said the case of Perez represents an improvement in the batting average of the Ombudsman in terms of prosecution.

From under 10 percent in 2005, Golez noted that the prosecution rate of the Ombudsman has gone up to almost 60 percent. With Jose Rodel Clapano, Mike Frialde, and Marvin Sy

Reported by: Sol Jose Vanzi

PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE