The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed the separate petitions filed by former justice secretary Hernando B. Perez and businessman Ernest De Leon Escaler to reverse the Sandiganbayan rulings that denied their motion to junk the forfeiture cases filed against them.

The forfeiture cases were filed as a result of their alleged extortion in February 2001 of $2 million from the late Manila Sixth District Rep. Mark Jimenez reportedly to lift the pressure in executing affidavits against personalities involved in the plunder case of then President Joseph Estrada.

Jimenez executed an affidavit against Perez – who served as justice secretary from July 1, 2001 until Jan. 1, 2003 -- in connection with the alleged extortion.

In a decision promulgated on Jan. 23, 2023 but made public last Aug. 8, the SC dismissed their petitions for “lack of merit” as it affirmed the rulings of the Sandiganbayan.  It said the anti-graft court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing its 2016 and 2017 rulings.

The decision was written by Senior Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen

Perez and Escaler challenged the Sandiganbayan orders after the SC in 2014 upheld the dismissal of the extortion and robbery cases against them, also in connection with the alleged demand of $2 million from Jimenez.

“Although the criminal cases in People v Sandiganbayan (the extortion and robbery cases) and the forfeiture proceeding involve similar parties, it bears stressing that their causes of action and respective issues are different. Forfeiture proceedings are civil in nature. While the forfeiture proceeding here emanated from the same set of facts as the criminal cases in People v. Sandiganbayan, it is nevertheless separate and distinct,” the SC said.

It said that in the criminal cases, Perez and Escaler were charged with violations of Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and robbery under the Revised Penal Code.

In the forfeiture proceedings, the SC said that Perez was accused of unlawfully acquiring assets and properties which were disproportionate to his salary and legitimate income.   

“Contrary to petitioners' assertions, the civil liability therefrom does not arise from the commission of the criminal charges but emanates from the provisions of Republic Act No. 1379, a law which protects the right of the State to recover properties illicitly acquired,” the SC said.

In the case of Escaler, the SC said that the Sandiganbayan did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in denying his plea to dismiss the forfeiture case.

It said the 0ffice of the Ombudsman has the authority to file the petition for forfeiture and had conducted a previous inquiry similar to a preliminary investigation in criminal proceedings before commencing the action with the Sandiganbayan.

The SC said:

“As Republic Act No. 1379 covers situations where properties unlawfully acquired by a public officer are concealed or transferred under the name of another, Escaler's insistence that he is not covered as he is not a public officer fails.

“Moreover, since the complaint specifically alleges his participation in the bank transactions involving the money presumed to be unlawfully acquired by Perez during his incumbency as a public officer, respondent (Sandiganbayan) did not err in impleading his name in the petition for forfeiture.”

“This Court finds that petitioners' right to the speedy disposition of their case was not violated. The apparent delay here lies in the constitution of the Special Panel of Reviewers on May 3, 2012, which is more than five years from the time Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez issued her directive on January 25, 2007.

“Despite the presence of delay, however, we find nothing in the records to indicate that petitioners asserted their right to the speedy disposition of their case during the interim.

“Based on the ensuing chronology of its issuances, this Court finds that the Sandiganbayan complied with its Internal Rules. Hence, it did not gravely abuse its discretion in rendering the assailed Resolutions dated April 18, 2016 and January 17, 2017.

“This Court also found that respondent did not commit forum shopping when it filed the present petition for forfeiture notwithstanding the prior dismissal of the Office of the Ombudsman of C-F-13-0013 by the Ombudsman.

“Besides, while both cases are for forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379, they have nonetheless different causes of action. OMB-C-F-13-0013 centered around the Perez spouses' acquired properties in the years 1995 to 1997 and 2001 which were found disproportionate to Perez's known annual income as a congressman, and later, as the secretary of justice.

“On the other hand, SB-I-4-CVL-0002 emanated from Perez's alleged failure to declare in his 2001 and 2002 Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth his and his wife's financial interest in the money supposedly extorted from Jimenez which was transferred by Escaler into their bank accounts.

“Accordingly, the consolidated Petitions in G.R. Nos. 229394 and 230186 are dismissed for lack of merit. So ordered.”