The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision that dismissed the falsification of public documents case filed by the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) in 2008 against former Justice Secretary Hernando “Nani” Perez in connection with his alleged failure to disclose his and his wife’s foreign bank deposits of $1.7 million.

In a resolution released last June 4, the SC said “the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are hearsay evidence because of their admission that they do not have personal knowledge of the contents of the documents they testified on.”

“Hence, the Sandiganbayan did not err in refusing to give probative value to these documentary and testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution, albeit having been previously admitted, leading to the dismissal of the case based on the demurrer to evidence,” it said.

The SC’s resolution denied the OMB’s petition which challenged the May 16, 2014 and the July 24, 2014 rulings of the Sandiganbayan which granted Perez’s motion for demurrer to evidence and dismissed the charges.

Demurrer to evidence is a pleading filed by an accused in a criminal case seeking the dismissal of the charges on alleged weakness of the prosecution’s evidence.

The grant of the demurrer is tantamount to an acquittal of the charges. Its denial, however, means that trial of the case will proceed.

In its complaint, the OMB said that Perez falsified his statement of assets, liabilities and networth (SALN) for 2001 by not disclosing his and his wife Rosario’s $1.7 million deposit in EFG Private Bank in Guernsey, a British Crown dependency.

The complaint arose from allegation of then Manila Rep. and businessman Mark Jimenez that Perez extorted $2 million from him in exchange for not testifying in the plunder case of then President Joseph Ejercito Estrada.

The documents presented by the OMB came from Coutts Bank in Hongkong and EFG Private Bank with accompanying letters of authentication from foreign authorities.

After the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence, Perez filed a motion for demurrer to evidence. He told the Sandiganbayan that Jimenez’s failure to testify and his (Jimenez’s) affidavit of desistance had rendered the complaint-affidavit as hearsay.

Also, Perez told the anti-graft court that the other prosecution witnesses admitted that they have no personal knowledge of the issues and facts they testified on.

When the Sandiganbayan granted the demurrer and dismissed the charges against Perez, the OMB elevated the case to the SC.

In dismissing OMB’s petition, the SC said that the complaint-affidavit of Jimenez, as well as the documents from the Hongkong authorities and Swiss Banks, cannot be given probative weight because the affiant and the signatories were not presented as witnesses and they did not testify on the contents of the said documents.

“In this case, the Sandiganbayan exhaustively examined the testimonial and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. The OSP (Office of the Special Prosecutor of the OMB) ascribes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the Sandiganbayan in ruling that the documentary evidence presented by the prosecution are hearsay despite having been previously admitted. The OSP is mistaken,” the SC ruled.