The Sandiganbayan has affirmed its decision that dismissed the civil forfeiture case filed against former justice secretary Hernando "Nani" B. Perez and his brother-in-law, Ramon Antonio Arceo Jr.

In a resolution issued last Sept. 16, the anti-graft court denied for lack of merit the motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecution.

The court ruled: "The petitioner's (prosecution) motion is a mere rehash of its previous arguments and submissions, which have already been duly considered by the court in its Resolution dated July 4, 2025. It is a well settled rule that a motion for reconsideration should be denied when the same only constitutes a rehash of issues previously put forward."

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 $2 million in 2001 from the late former Manila congressman Mario Crespo, also known as Mark Jimenez.

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 Caliraya-Botocan-Kalayaan (CBK) power plant project.

Offered in evidence by the prosecution were the documents secured from Hong Kong and Switzerland. However, no probative value was accorded by the anti-graft court on the documents from Hong Kong since the witnesses who testified on the documents had no personal knowledge of their contents.

On July 4, 2025, the court granted the demurrer to evidence filed by Perez and Arceo as it found that the prosecution's evidence was "grossly inadequate to support the charge against them."

While the prosecution argued in its motion for reconsideration that the documentary exhibits it presented enjoy the presumption of regularity and should be given evidentiary weight, the anti-graft court disagreed and maintained that the bank documents are "hearsay and cannot be accorded probative value."

In a separate resolution last Sept. 17, the anti-graft court granted the demurrer to evidence filed last June 23 by co-accused Ernest De Leon Escaler.

Escaler argued that the evidence against him is based on incompetent and hearsay evidence, as the individuals who purportedly executed the documents relative to the case were not called to testify.

The court agreed with Escaler as it ruled that the prosecution failed to present a competent witness who can testify about the bank documents involved.

It said: "It should be underscored that bank documents are private documents, which still require proper authentication. The failure of the petitioner to present a competent witness renders the bank documents devoid of probative value and, consequently, insufficient to support the allegations in the petition."

Both resolutions were signed by Third Division Chairperson Associate Justice Karl B. Miranda and Associate Justices Edgardo M. Caldona and Ronald B. Moreno.