2nd petition filed by Barrameda slay suspect rejected
For the second time, the Office of the President (OP) has rejected the appeal of Manuel Jimenez III, Ruby Rose Barrameda’s estranged husband, to reverse its earlier ruling ordering the filing of charges against him in connection with his wife’s killing.
In a four-page resolution issued on July 4, a copy of which was obtained by the Inquirer, the OP found lacking in merit Jimenez’s June 1 supplemental motion for reconsideration in which he insisted that the earlier ruling issued on May 2 should be not enforced.
According to him, this was in light of a decision issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) on May 22 in which it ordered the case transferred to another judge. It also denied a petition filed by Manuel Montero, Jimenez’s coaccused, to turn state witness.
The CA had said that there was sufficient basis for Manuel Jimenez Jr.,—the younger Jimenez’s father—imputation of partiality against Malabon Regional Trial Court Branch 120 Judge Zaldy Docena, who is handling Barrameda’s case.
In addition, the court said that Montero could not be discharged as a state witness because he had yet to comply with the requirements specified in the revised rules of court.
In dismissing the supplemental motion for reconsideration, the OP noted Jimenez’s first four arguments—that there was no probable cause to indict him for the crime of parricide based on hearsay; that he could not be implicated in the killing of Barrameda since the statement of Montero was inadmissible as evidence; that the body recovered in a steel drum off the waters of Navotas was not Ruby Rose’s; and that motive was allegedly not an essential element of the crime of parricide.
It said that these were merely “reiterations” of his previous appeals and had already been addressed in its May 2 decision.
It also gave the same argument for Jimenez’s fifth and sixth arguments—that the existence of conspiracy cannot be established as there was no direct evidence connecting him as principal by inducement; and that Montero was disqualified to turn state witness for his failure to satisfy all the requirements of the revised rules of court.
Meanwhile, Jimenez Jr. has asked the appellate court to uphold its May 22 decision ordering the transfer of the case to another judge.
The 19-page comment filed on June 21 through his counsel Mario Aguinaldo was in response to a motion for reconsideration submitted by the Office of the Solicitor General on June 11 which sought the reversal of the 10th Division’s decision.
“Every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. Sadly, however, (Docena’s) actuations, attitude and demeanor toward (Jimenez Jr.) and his counsel have effectively shown that he cannot get the cold neutrality and impartiality [required of a] judge),” the comment said.
