Saying there was a basis for the allegation of partiality against the judge in charge of the Ruby Rose Barrameda case, the Court of Appeals has ordered that the sensational case be raffled off to another judge “in the interest of justice.”
At the same time, members of the 10th Division ruled that Manuel Montero should not be discharged as a state witness, reversing the decision of Judge Zaldy Docena of the Malabon Regional Trial Court Branch 170.
The appellate court’s May 22 decision, a copy of which was obtained by the Inquirer, was based on a petition filed by Manuel Jimenez Jr., Barrameda’s father-in-law and one of the principal accused.
In the petition, Jimenez Jr. accused Docena, his fraternity brother, of grave abuse of discretion when he granted Montero’s petition that he be allowed to turn state witness.
He also denounced Docena for refusing to keep his hands off the case despite the judge’s ties with head prosecutor Theodore Villanueva, his former classmate at Ateneo Law School.
According to the appellate court, Docena’s argument that, if at all, his fraternal ties with Jimenez Jr. should have made him more sympathetic to the petitioner than to Villanueva—a “mere” classmate—was “less convincing.”
“In the present case, we see more reason for him [Docena] to inhibit since there is a tie that binds him to both parties… Whatever will be the outcome of the case, whether for or against conviction, the suspicion of bias will remain,” it said.
The court also cited several of Docena’s actions which favored the prosecution, thus casting cast doubts on his impartiality.
These included, among others, Docena’s “nonobservance of judicial courtesy” during the hearing conducted on July 28, 2011, when he exhibited an “apparent haste” in having Montero take the witness stand.
Another one was his decision to grant a motion and manifestation filed by the prosecution for the cancellation of the Sept. 29, 2011, hearing because Villanueva would be attending a forum in Malaysia.
“There is no reason why the hearing scheduled should be canceled… We note that the prosecution is composed of a panel of trial prosecutors and only the lead prosecutor, State Prosecutor Villanueva, will be in Malaysia. Why can’t the prosecution proceed with the case?” the decision penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio and concurred in by Associate Justice Jose Reyes Jr., chair of the 10th Division, and Associate Justice Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla.
On its ruling to reverse Docena’s decision to allow Montero to turn state witness, the appellate court cited the latter’s failure to comply with four of the five conditions set by the Rules of Criminal Procedure. These were that there be absolute necessity for his testimony, that there be no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed except for his testimony, for his testimony to be substantially corroborated and lastly, that he not appear as the most guilty in the commission of the crime.
It noted that Montero had complied only with the fifth condition, namely, that the accused seeking to be discharged as a state witness should not have been convicted at any time of “any offense involving moral turpitude.”
According to the appellate court, there was no “absolute necessity” for Montero’s testimony since “all the prosecution needs to do is present [him on] the witness stand in order to identify, affirm and confirm what were indicated in [his] two sworn statements.”
Citing People vs Chaves, the court said that it was “not necessary” for Montero to be discharged as a state witness before he can testify even if the prosecution’s claim that his testimony is the “only direct evidence” to prove the conspiracy in Barrameda’s death was assumed.
This was because Montero could testify as a coaccused instead, it added.
“It should be noted that when Montero signed a “Pasubali” indicating that he understands whatever he declares may be used against him in any court of law in the Philippines, it is presumed that Montero is willing to testify against his coaccused despite full knowledge that he would also suffer the imposable penalty,” it said.
At the same time, the court said that the evidence recovered from the waters of Navotas in 2009 contradicted and did not corroborate Montero’s claims.
It cited, among others, his claim that there was tape on Barrameda’s mouth when she was killed, a detail refuted by a medico-legal report issued in 2009.
It added that “by his own admission,” Montero “appears to be the most guilty” since he “had actual and substantial performance” in all the stages of the crime.
On June 10, 2009, policemen acting on a tip fished out of the waters off Navotas a steel drum which contained the body of Ruby Rose, 27, who had been missing for more than two years. It was later determined that the victim had been strangled before being stuffed inside the drum and covered with concrete.
The discovery of her body led to several members of her husband’s family being charged with her murder, along with Montero who claimed the Jimenezes had ordered her killed.
Also charged was Ruby Rose’s husband with whom she had been fighting in court for custody of their children.