THE Sandiganbayan has dismissed the $2 million ill-gotten wealth case filed in 2014 by the Office of the Ombudsman against former Justice secretary Hernando “Nani” Perez and three others based on the extortion complaint of the late Manila Rep. Mario Crespo, alias Mark Jimenez, in 2001.
The anti-graft court’s Third Division, in a 45-page per curiam resolution dated June 17, 2025, granted the demurrer to evidence filed by Perez and his brother-in-law Ramon Antonio Arceo on the ground that the bulk of the evidence presented against them by government lawyers had no probative value.
A per curiam resolution is a ruling of the court as a whole and is not attributed to any of the three members of the Division.
The decision was signed by Associate Justice Karl B. Miranda, Bernelito R. Fernandez, and Ronald B. Moreno.
Other than Perez and Arceo, also named in the forfeiture case were Perez’s wife, Rosario, and businessman Erenst Escaler.
In his allegations that he later retracted, Crespo/Jimenez claimed he coughed up $2 million in exchange for his exclusion in a criminal investigation for plunder involving former president Joseph Estrada in 2001.
Government lawyers said the money was moved around in various transactions through the Trade and Commerce Bank in Cayman Islands to the Coutts Bank in Hong Kong in February 23, 2001; the EFG Private Bank in Singapore on March 6, 2001; the Standard Chartered Bank in New York, USA to Escaler’s Coutt’s Bank, HK account on May 16, 2001; and smaller cash transfers through a bank draft for $250,000 issued to Arceo; $200,000 transferred to Escaler’s account in Citibank, Manila; and $700,000 transferred to EFG Private Bank, Singapore – all three happening on May 23, 2001.
Ombudsman investigators said copies of Perez’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) did not disclose financial interests of $1.7 million, noting that he only declared total assets of P40.305 million in 2001 and P40.279 million in 2002.
Since the $1.7 million in the EFG Private Bank AG account of Perez and his wife was not declared, the Office of the Ombudsman found the sum to be “manifestly out of proportion to his salary as public officer and to his other lawful income.” It likewise filed a petition asking the Sandiganbayan to forfeit in favor of the government the bank deposits and other sums from Escaler and Arceo to a total of $2 million.
In their demurrer to evidence dated May 16, 2024, Perez and Arceo asked the court to dismiss the 10-year old case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.
The defendants argued that the combined testimonial and documentary evidence of the petitioner are
inadequate to support the petition for forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379.
They pointed out that Jimenez, who is the “vital and primary witness” who can back the government’s case, was not presented in court until his death in 2017 even if his affidavits were submitted as part of the evidence against them.
While the court overruled the respondents’ stand that the government evidence against them is mostly hearsay, it declared that the allegations in the petition were not sufficiently supported by evidence.
“After evaluation of the evidence on record, the court finds that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case. Several pieces of documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioner to establish its case against the respondents have no probative value,” the Sandiganbayan said.
It said that because Jimenez, as accuser, never took the witness stand, he never authenticated his complaint-affidavit and the supplemental complaint affidavit that came after it.
This, it added, deprived Perez and his co-respondents of an opportunity to cross-examine him.
“While cross-examination is generally invoked in criminal cases, its importance equally applies to non -criminal proceedings to test the witness’ accuracy and truthfulness of statements, freedom from interest or bias, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue. His affidavits will thus serve no purpose for lack of probative value,” the court noted.
Further, the court pointed out that transaction records obtained by the government from Hong Kong and Switzerland banks were not testified on by witnesses who had direct participation in the transactions.
The officer of Coutts Bank in Hong Kong that executed the documents presented in court was not called to testify, as well as the official of EFG Private Bank who could have authenticated the paper trail of the money.
“Based on the evidence presented, it failed to establish that Hernando Perez, et al. acquired a considerable amount of money or property that is manifestly out of proportion to their salary and other lawful income,” the court declared.
