Sandigan asked to bar appeal vs. dismissal of robbery case vs Nani Perez, wife
MANILA, Philippines - Former Justice Secretary Hernando ‘Nani’ Perez and wife Rosario has asked the Sandiganbayan to bar the appeal of the Office of the Ombudsman regarding the dismissed robbery case against them.
In their 15-page rejoinder filed last Jan. 22, the Perez couple stressed that the Ombudsman erred by failing to serve them copies of its motion for reconsideration.
The couple cited Supreme Court pronouncements in the case of Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan declaring that “a motion with a fatally defective notice is a useless scrap of paper... legally non-existent... as if it has never been filed."
Under court rules, litigants are supposed to serve the other party copy of his motion at least three days before the hearing.
The Sandiganbayan Second Division, in its November 2008 resolution, dismissed the robbery case against the couple on the ground of inordinate delay.
The Perezes noted that the Ombudsman sent copies of its appeal to them by registered mail, which the defendants received on Dec. 17, just two days short of the hearing date set on Dec. 19.
"The motion for reconsideration, not having satisfied the three-day rule, is a mere scrap of paper which [did] not toll the running of the prescriptive period [to appeal] and is not entitled to judicial cognizance. The resolution of this Court as a consequence has become final and already beyond the reach of the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration," defense lawyers said.
The defense also noted that the Ombudsman overstepped its duty during preliminary investigation by "acting not only as complainant, but also the policeman, the detective, the prosecutor and the judge all rolled into one."
The defense said this happened when the Ombudsman tried to secure bank documents pertaining to the paper trail of the $2 million supposedly paid to them by former Manila Rep. Mark Jimenez, the complainant in the case.
The camp of the Perezes also denied that they had intentionally delayed the preliminary investigation by filing so many pleadings as claimed by the Ombudsman. They said it was Jimenez who had repeatedly asked for extensions to comply with various orders from the Ombudsman.
"There were only two occasions when the Perez spouses requested for suspension of proceedings. The first one was in January 17, 2007 and the second was on March 2007… [when] the cases had been languishing in the Office of the Ombudsman for nearly six years!" the defense noted.
Jimenez alleged that Perez, with the help Rosario, brother-in-law Ramon Arceo, and businessman Ernest Escaler, had extorted $2 million from him in February 2001 after he refused to execute affidavits that can be used to bolster the plunder case against deposed President Joseph Estrada.
The money was supposedly paid to stop Perez from threatening him with a criminal indictment as a co-accused of Estrada in the plunder charge. - GMANews.TV
In their 15-page rejoinder filed last Jan. 22, the Perez couple stressed that the Ombudsman erred by failing to serve them copies of its motion for reconsideration.
The couple cited Supreme Court pronouncements in the case of Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan declaring that “a motion with a fatally defective notice is a useless scrap of paper... legally non-existent... as if it has never been filed."
Under court rules, litigants are supposed to serve the other party copy of his motion at least three days before the hearing.
The Sandiganbayan Second Division, in its November 2008 resolution, dismissed the robbery case against the couple on the ground of inordinate delay.
The Perezes noted that the Ombudsman sent copies of its appeal to them by registered mail, which the defendants received on Dec. 17, just two days short of the hearing date set on Dec. 19.
"The motion for reconsideration, not having satisfied the three-day rule, is a mere scrap of paper which [did] not toll the running of the prescriptive period [to appeal] and is not entitled to judicial cognizance. The resolution of this Court as a consequence has become final and already beyond the reach of the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration," defense lawyers said.
The defense also noted that the Ombudsman overstepped its duty during preliminary investigation by "acting not only as complainant, but also the policeman, the detective, the prosecutor and the judge all rolled into one."
The defense said this happened when the Ombudsman tried to secure bank documents pertaining to the paper trail of the $2 million supposedly paid to them by former Manila Rep. Mark Jimenez, the complainant in the case.
The camp of the Perezes also denied that they had intentionally delayed the preliminary investigation by filing so many pleadings as claimed by the Ombudsman. They said it was Jimenez who had repeatedly asked for extensions to comply with various orders from the Ombudsman.
"There were only two occasions when the Perez spouses requested for suspension of proceedings. The first one was in January 17, 2007 and the second was on March 2007… [when] the cases had been languishing in the Office of the Ombudsman for nearly six years!" the defense noted.
Jimenez alleged that Perez, with the help Rosario, brother-in-law Ramon Arceo, and businessman Ernest Escaler, had extorted $2 million from him in February 2001 after he refused to execute affidavits that can be used to bolster the plunder case against deposed President Joseph Estrada.
The money was supposedly paid to stop Perez from threatening him with a criminal indictment as a co-accused of Estrada in the plunder charge. - GMANews.TV
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
