The Sandiganbayan has dismissed the $2 million civil forfeiture case filed against former justice secretary Hernando Nani B. Perez and his brother-in-law Ramon Antonio Arceo Jr. after the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to support its case.

The civil case, docketed as SB-14-CVL-0002 for Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Properties under Republic Act No. 1379, stemmed from the alleged demand made by Perez for US$2 million from former Manila congressman Mario Crespo, known as Mark Jimenez, in 2001.

The money was supposedly in exchange for the exclusion of Jimenez in the plunder investigation against former president Joseph Erap Estrada over the multi-billion-peso Caliraya-Botocan-Kalayaan (CBK) power plant project.

On May 16, 2024, Perez and Arceo filed a demurrer to evidence and moved for the dismissal of the case for insufficiency of evidence.

A demurrer to evidence is a pleading filed by an accused in a criminal case or a respondent is the civil case to dismiss the charge on account of alleged weakness of the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Perez and Arceo argued that the testimonial evidence against them is just hearsay and grossly inadequate to support the charge against them, especially considering that the witnesses presented admitted they did not have personal knowledge of the facts they testified on.

As for the documentary exhibits, Perez and Arceo said these were also hearsay as the prosecution did not even present the persons who allegedly executed them.

While the anti-graft court did not agree that the oral testimonies of the witnesses qualify as hearsay, it pointed out that several pieces of evidence that were heavily relied on by the prosecution have no probative value.

The court said that the civil case is anchored on documents secured from Hong Kong and Switzerland. However, the witnesses who testified on the documents admitted to having no personal knowledge as well of their contents, it also said.

It added that the bank documents from Hong Kong, specifically, were offered as part of the basis for the filing of the petition. However, the court said the documents cannot be accorded probative value since the witnesses who testified have no personal knowledge of their contents.

At the same time, the court said that Jimenez, a key figure in the case, never took the witness stand. Jimenez did not authenticate his Complaint-Affidavit and Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit, nor was he cross-examined, and thus, his affidavits serve no purpose for lack of probative value, it said.

The court pointed out that the case failed to satisfy all the elements of violation of RA 1379. “Based on the evidence presented, it failed to establish that Hernando Perez, et al. (and others) acquired a considerable amount of money or property that is manifestly out of proportion to their salary and other lawful income,” it said.

The dispositive portion of the Sandiganbayan’s June 17, 2025 resolution: “Wherefore, in the light of the foregoing, the Demurrer to Evidence of respondents Hernando B. Perez and Ramon Antonio C. Arceo, Jr. is granted. Consequently, this case is ordered dismissed”

The 45-page resolution was written by Third Division Chairperson Associate Justice Karl B. Miranda with the concurrence of Associate Justices Bernelito R. Fernandez and Ronald B. Moreno.

In 2021, the Supreme Court (SC) affirmed the 2014 Sandiganbayan decision that cleared Perez of criminal charges in connection with the alleged $2 million demand.

The SC ruled that the anti-graft court did not commit an error in refusing to give probative value to the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution in the criminal charges.