Government files $2-million forfeiture case vs. Nani Perez, 3 others

The government is seeking to take over $2 million in assets from former Justice Secretary Hernando “Nani” Perez, his wife and two others.
 
In a 15-page civil forfeiture case that the Office of the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan last week but was only made available to the media on Friday, government prosecutors said “there is a sufficient cause of action” for the government to seek the forfeiture of the assets of Perez, his wife Rosario, his brother in-law Ramon Arceo Jr. and business associate Ernesto Escaler, as its investigation showed that the $2-million worth of their assets were “illegally acquired”.
 
“The Office of the Ombudsman, after conducting an inquiry similar to a preliminary investigation in criminal cases, has determined that a prima facie case exists against the respondents Hernando B, Perez, Rosario S. Perez, Ernest DL Escaler and Ramon Antonio C. Arceo Jr., for acquiring an amount of money and/or property manifestly out of proportion to the salary of respondent Hernando B. Perez as public officer, and to his other lawful income,” the forfeiture case stated.
 
The case was raffled off on Friday morning and was assigned to the Sandiganbayan Third Division, chaired by Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang.
 
According to the forfeiture case, Perez and Escaler allegedly extorted $2 million from businessman and former Manila Rep. Mark Jimenez in 2001 in exchange for not forcing him to testify in the plunder case against former President Joseph Estrada, now mayor of Manila.
 
Jimenez was an Estrada ally and also served as Estrada’s presidential adviser for Latin American affairs. He was Justice secretary to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from January 20, 2001 to January 2, 2003.
 
According to the Office of the Ombudsman, its investigators found a money trail that revealed that Jimenez transferred $1,999,965.00 to Escaler’s bank account in Coutts Bank, Hong Kong on February 23, 2001.
 
The Office of the Ombudsman said their records even revealed that the respondents were all in Hong Kong on the date of the alleged transfer.
 
The Office of the Ombudsman said three months after, on May 23, 2001, Escaler’s account at Coutts Bank transferred money amounting $1.7 million to two bank accounts at EFG Private Bank AG in Guernsey, a British Crown dependency. The bank accounts were allegedly owned by the Perez couple.
 
The Ombudsman’s investigation also revealed that Escaler transferred an amount of $200,000 from his Coutts Bank account in Hong Kong to his bank account in Citibank Manila.
 
Escaler also allegedly issued a bank draft for $250,000 from his Coutts Bank account in favor of Arceo.

The Office of the Ombudsman said the $1.7 million was not declared on Perez’ Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) in 2001 and 2002. The Ombudsman said that Perez only declared total asset of P40.3 million in 2001 and P40.2 million in 2002.
 
“A total amount of assets declared by him obviously did not include the $1.7 million deposited by Escaler to their bank accounts at EFG Private Bank AG in Guernsey...Such concealment of properties and assets had defrauded the government, which has a legitimate claim against the respondents,” the forfeiture case said.
 
“Considering that respondent Perez, during his incumbency as public officer, unlawfully acquired monies/properties which are manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, such monies/properties amounting to more or less $2 million are subject to forfeiture in favor of the government,” the Ombudsman said.
 
In its petition, the Office of the Ombudsman also prayed to the court to issue a writ of preliminary attachment/garnishment in order to secure the respondents’ assets pending the resolution of the $2-million forfeiture case.
 
“Without the issuance of a writ of attachment/garnishment, and without the properties of the respondents being made to stand as security for the government’s claim, any judgement in its favour may be rendered fruitless and inutile,” the petition said.
 
The Ombudsman wanted the attachment/garnishment to cover any form of assets owned by the respondents such as investments and accounts in all banks, banking institutions and savings and loan associations, as well as real estate properties that would satisfy the amount of $2 million.
 
In January of this year, the Supreme Court affirmed the 2008 ruling of the Sandiganbayan dismissing the $2-million criminal case filed by Jimenez against Perez in relation to the alleged extortion.
 
However, based on the rules of court, a civil case can be filed independently from the criminal case over the same allegation since pronouncement in a criminal case is not necessarily binding to the civil aspect of the case and vice versa. — JDS, GMA News