E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
The whole truth is not yet out
Sunday, 12 01, 2002
Given the admission of Rep. Mark Jimenez in his privilege speech, it is not much of a problem to believe that bribery took place. What demands an exposition is the reason the payoff took place at all, for exactly how much, and for whom.
Jimenez, made sure his admission would not tarnish his reputation to several more degrees of darkness. Thus, his accusation against Perez was carefully worded: While Jimenez wants desperately to have Perez indicted for bribery, he tried to shield himself from any criminal indictment.
In law, both the taker and the giver of the bribe are equally liable. But the bribe giver can be absolved citing justifying circumstances. Also, under P.D. No. 749, the giver could be given immunity from prosecution.
Jimenez’s admission as the bribe giver could be given in evidence against him in a criminal proceeding. But he wisely claims to have given the bribe – under duress, under the compulsion of an irresistible force or that he was acting under impulse of an uncontrollable fear - for which reasons he can get away with bribery and still secure a conviction for the bribe taker.
The money was supposed to have originated from the Trade and Commerce Bank in Uruguay, routed through the Trade and Commerce Bank in Cayman Islands and Chase Manhattan Bank of New York, and finally to Coutts Bank in Hong Kong. But then, somebody under duress does not have the luxury of effecting a payoff in such a very elaborate manner, and it should not take ten meetings for the bribe giver to convince the bribe taker to go along with such a scheme. Also, it was simply too dangerous for one threatening to take a bribe to be so reckless as to meet with the putative bribe giver 10 times.
Which makes one curious to ask why the $2 million had to be paid without any assurance he would not be harassed in the future, a fact which according to Jimenez continued despite the payoff. Besides, $2 million is just too much to buy peace with a man, described by Jimenez as ‘evil-spirited, cruel, ruthless, a remorseless one.’ For, perhaps, only P100,000, Jimenez could have already bought his peace by some other means.
Was the bribe given to stop all efforts to extradite Jimenez? Hardly, because it would have been foolhardy for the Justice secretary to resort to such a ruse or for Jimenez to part with such a substantial sum. Remember that Jimenez was already a candidate for congressman by then, with his victory a certainty, thereby giving him a guarantee against extradition. He could win in his candidacy for very much less, so why should he pay $2 million for something that was for the courts to determine and over which the Justice secretary had no control?
Jimenez has the goods on Perez. Perez’s and Escaler’s jaunt to Hong Kong, at or near the gate where the bank transfer was supposed to have already materialized, is just too uncanny a coincidence. Escaler himself admits that he, together with Perez, went several times to the South Forbes mansion of Jimenez. These neatly put Perez at the scene of the crime.
The payoff was supposed to have been made on Feb. 23, 2001, three weeks after the alleged extortion started. A countback would put the date of the start of the alleged attempt to extort at or very near the date when the Impsa deal was concluded.
More believable then as basis for the payoff is the Impsa deal. Given the magnitude of the deal, $14 million in bribe money is a mere token. This is the same amount President Estrada claims to have been offered to him by Jimenez, which the former leader wisely rejected.
The revelation of Jimenez fixes our gaze at only $2 million. How about the rest of the $14 million? If Perez got only $2 million, who then ran away with the $12 million?
The answer is in the records of Coutts Bank in Hong Kong and, closer to home, in the recesses of Jimenez’s memory bank. With a sense of déjà vu, a reprise of the second-envelope episode of the impeachment trial looms in the air – where, ironically, Perez, a member of the prosecution team, might find the tables have been turned this time. The transactions on Bank Account No. HO 13706 of Escaler in Coutts Bank must be disclosed. Escaler, however, hedges; he throws the burden on Jimenez. Escaler knows his clumsy dare won’t wash; he admitted more against himself and Perez, and corroborated Jimenez’s claim, with that dare. Now, Escaler has left the country.
Statements coming from Malacañang understandably do not help any in solving the riddle of the $12 million. Malacañang should not unilaterally declare Perez innocent while it tightens the screws on Jimenez. For all his reported indiscretions with his money, Jimenez still comes out believable, which makes Perez a clear candidate for the accused’s dock for bribery and plunder. Jimenez has proved that $2 million went to Perez; he can also prove that somebody else got the $12 million.
Are we seeing the resurrection of Chavit in Jimenez? Jimenez is not telling us everything, yet. Would there be one final thing more explosive that he and the bank account have yet to reveal, that could lead to another crossing of the Pasig at high noon?
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
No comments:
Post a Comment