THE Sandiganbayan Third Division has allowed government lawyers to present additional documentary and testimonial evidence in a $2 million civil case for the recovery of alleged unlawfully acquired properties of former justice secretary Hernando “Nani” Perez and his co-defendants.
In its July 28, 2022 resolution penned by Presiding Justice and division chairperson Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang, the court granted the Republic’s motion for inclusion of exhibits and witnesses in the pre-trial order over the objections raised by businessman Ernest De Leon Escaler, a co-defendant of Perez.
The case involves an allegation that Perez was paid $2 million by late Manila congressman Mark Jimenez a.k.a. Mario Crespo who earlier claimed the sum was extorted from him in 2001 in exchange for being dropped in the plunder investigation against then president Joseph Estrada.
Jimenez later issued a retraction but the Ombudsman held that bank records showing the money trail and the failure of Perez to disclose the amount in his 2001 and 2002 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) constitute sufficient basis to pursue the case.
The court however declared that Jimenez’s affidavit of desistance is immaterial to the pending forfeiture case since a petition under RA 1379 is civil in nature and rests solely on the recovery of assets presumed to be ill-gotten.
Regardless of the affidavit of desistance from Jimenez, the court said the petition for forfeiture stands on its own as the existence or the absence of criminal liability has no bearing on the case.
In its motion, the government asked to be allowed to include among its exhibits a request for authentication sent by former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales on June 27, 2012 to then foreign affairs secretary Albert del Rosario and confidential documents including communications between the prosecution panel and DFA assistant secretary Jaime Victor Ledda.
To testify on the said documents, the petitioner also sought permission to present Ledda, Ambassador Leslie Baja, and Consul Lilibeth Pono as witnesses.
They invoked the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in the case of Frisco San Juan vs. Sandiganbayan that allowed additional marking of exhibits to give the prosecution the opportunity to fully present its case.
Respondents Perez, his brother-in-law Ramon Arceo, and Escaler argued that the government motion is contrary to the Rules of Court as the documents sought to be marked were not included in the pre-trial brief or the amended pre-trial brief.
While affirming the respondents’ stand that the government did not make the proper reservation to present additional evidence, the Sandiganbayan ruled to allow it on the ground that the pre-trial order has yet to be issued.
“The court, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, can relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, if doing so would serve the ends of justice. In this case, the additional marking of evidence and inclusion of witnesses would not unduly prejudice the respondents since the prosecution has not even begun with the presentation of its evidence,” the court pointed out.
However, it directed government lawyers that it is only given a non-extendible period of 15 days from receipt of the resolution to submit all judicial affidavits of its witnesses.
