Sandiganbayan junks $2-million forfeiture case vs ex-DOJ chief Nani Perez

MANILA — The Sandiganbayan Third Division has dismissed the US$2 million forfeiture case against former Justice Secretary Hernando “Nani” Perez, due to the supposed insufficiency of the presented bank documents to support the case.

Perez’s co-accused include his wife Rosario, businessman Ernest De Leon Escaler, and brother-in-law Ramon Antonio Arceo, Jr. 

The case stemmed from the alleged extortion of $2 million from former Manila Sixth District representative Mark Jimenez, with supposed fund transfers from his foreign bank accounts to the accounts of Perez, Escaler and Arceo.

Sandigan affirms decision allowing testimony of witness in Nani Perez forfeiture case

Based on its resolution per curiam promulgated on June 17, 2025, the Sandiganbayan Third Division granted Perez and Arceo, Jr’s demurrer to evidence, noting that the bank documents presented “have no probative value and are therefore insufficient to support the claims in the petition.”

“After evaluation of the evidence on record, the court finds that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case. Several pieces of documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioner to establish its case against the respondents have no probative value,” the resolution read.

The anti-graft court noted that the bank documents were “not sufficiently established” since the witnesses who testified supposedly lacked personal knowledge of its contents.

“They were not identified by the persons who prepared them and who did not even take the witness stand, depriving the respondents of their right to cross-examine these persons. The Court cannot afford probative value or weight to these documents for being hearsay,” according to the resolution.

Aside from this, the Sandiganbayan said the presented bank documents—which form part of the basis for the filing of the case—were not authenticated.

“None of the petitioner's witnesses attested to the genuineness of the signature or handwriting appearing on the bank records. In fact, none of them was privy to the transactions/documents. No other evidence was shown to establish their due execution and authenticity,” the resolution read.

“The bank documents form part of the basis for the filing of the petition. However, none of the witnesses presented by the petitioner attested to their due execution and authenticity,” it added.

“In the absence of such authentication, the bank documents remain hearsay, lack evidentiary value, and cannot substantiate the claims alleged in the Petition.”

All these considered, the Sandiganbayan said the petition did not meet all the elements for the prima facie presumption under the forfeiture law.

“Based on the evidence presented, it failed to establish that Hernando Perez, et al. acquired a considerable amount of money or property that is manifestly out of proportion to their salary and other lawful income,” it said.

“All told, the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case and is not entitled to the relief sought,” it added.

The resolution was signed by Associate Justices Karl Miranda, Bernelito Fernandez, and Ronald Moreno.