DoJ asked to renew travel ban vs Barrameda suspect | Inquirer News

DoJ asked to renew travel ban vs Barrameda suspect

/ 11:35 PM May 09, 2012

Fearing that one of the primary suspects in the killing of her younger sister will slip out of the country, actress Rochelle Barrameda has called on the Department of Justice (DOJ) to renew a travel ban against Ruby Rose Barrameda’s estranged husband, Manuel Jimenez III.

Barrameda made the call after the Office of the President recently denied a petition for review filed by Jimenez III in 2010, reaffirming a 2010 DOJ resolution that ordered, among others, the filing of parricide charges against him.

Although former Justice Secretary Alberto Agra had issued a travel ban against Jimenez III, Barrameda said this had lapsed six months after it was released.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Our worry is that he might leave [the country]. They own many ships, don’t they?” she said.

FEATURED STORIES

Jimenez III is the nephew of fishing magnate Lope Jimenez who, along with Jimenez III’s father, Manuel Jimenez Jr., is one of those charged for the murder of Ruby Rose, whose body was found encased in concrete inside a drum that was fished out of the waters off Navotas in 2009.

Lope has denied any participation in the killing of Ruby Rose, claiming that he and Jimenez Jr. had been estranged for some time.

In the decision issued by the Office of the President on May 2, however, Lope was ordered included in the list of accused. His inclusion was an affirmation of the 2010 DOJ resolution, but was a reversal of former Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera’s order that cleared him.

According to Barrameda, her apprehension was valid since government lawyers had told her that although the Office of the President had denied Jimenez III’s petition, this did not mean that a warrant of arrest would automatically be issued against him.

She said that she was told that for the case to move forward, a petition for inhibition filed by Jimenez Jr. against Malabon Regional Trial Court Judge Zaldy Docena should first be acted upon by the Court of Appeals.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS:

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.