Ruby Rose case on state witness

Counsel: Self-confessed brains should not walk

By Benjamin B. Pulta

06/15/2010

Defense lawyers are asking the Malabon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) not to discharge confessed killer Manuel Montero from the murder charges in the Ruby Rose Barrameda-Jimenez murder case.

In an opposition to the motion for reconsideration filed by the Barrameda family, Manuel Jimenez Jr. — one of the accused in the murder case and father-in-law of the victim — told the trial court that Montero who has admitted to killing and then hiding the body of the victim cannot be discharged as a state witness under court rules which require that a state witness be the least guilty among the accused.

Montero, the defense lawyers explained, “appears to be the one of the most guilty since he was the mastermind in the execution stage of the alleged planned murder.”

“Evidently, Montero was a mastermind with respect to the phases of the crime charged. His cooperation is material to the actual accomplishement of the planned murder. It was even Montero who set the evil design and machinery in motion. How can he be not one of the most guilty, when, not only did he actually participated in the crime, but his participation and cooperation was also the key factor for its successful accomplishment.”

Jimenez Jr. pointed out that “if Montero’s statements do not even conform or jibe with the physical evidence and the sworn statements of the complaining witnesses, then sound logic dictates that the said physical evidence and sworn statements cannot and will not corroborate the testimony of Montero to be given in open court.”

In denying the plea of government prosecutors to exclude Montero from the criminal case, RTC Judge Hector Almeyda ruled that a primordial consideration for the discharge of an accused to be utilized as state witness is that he must not be the most guilty — a finding that has to be gauged from the statement of the accused, himself, and other available evidence.

“Here, contrary to the prosecution’s claim, there is not enough clear showing that Montero was not the most guilty, or at best the one who is least guilty,” the court said.

Ruby Rose, estranged wife of Manuel Jimenez III, went missing on March 14, 2007. On May 18, 2009, Montero surrendered to the police, confessed to the killing of Ruby Rose, and implicated at least six other persons in the slaying.

On the basis of his confession, Department of Justice (DoJ) prosecutors filed before the Malabon City RTC murder charges against Montero, Manuel Jimenez Jr. (father of Manuel III), Lope Jimenez (uncle of Manuel III and brother of Manuel Jr.), Eric Fernandez, Lennard Descalso, Roberto Ponce and Rudy de la Cruz.

On a petition for review, then Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera ordered the dismissal of the case against Lope Jimenez as she directed the prosecutors to include Jimenez III in the criminal case pending with the Malabon City RTC.

Montero worked for 13 years as operations manager of the Buena Suerte Jimenez (BSJ) Fishing and Trading Co. owned by Lope Jimenez. In 2007, records showed that Montero was dismissed by Lope Jimenez for various infractions, including stealing from the company.

After the filing of the cases before the RTC, government prosecutors filed a motion to exclude Montero from the criminal charges for use as state witness against the other accused.

But the trial court, in a five-page order ruled that “the motion to discharge accused Manuel Montero from the information (criminal charge sheet) to be utilized as state witness is denied.”

In their motion, DoJ prosecutors told the trial court that Montero would be “the only person willing to testify and give justice to the family of the deceased” and that “there is absolute necessity for Montero’s testimony.”

“The prosecution’s case, whether it likes to admit or not, heavily relies on Montero’s testimony, the absence of which will gravely compromise the possibility of securing conviction beyond reasonable doubt of all the other accused,” Judge Almeyda said.

Beyond the recovery and identity of Ruby Rose’s body, “there appears to be a complete dearth of proof that evidence thus far received could stand on its own to secure conviction of the other accused,” he said.

“The testimony of Montero, who is to be presumed will be merely parroting what he stated in his sworn statements, could hardly strengthen the prosecution’s case whose theory heavily relies on what Montero declared. There is here no case of Montero’s statements being corroborated at all by other pieces of evidence. In other words, as matters stand now, Montero’s admission of guilt hardly prejudices the presumed innocence of the parties that Montero claimed had a hand in Ruby Rose’s death,” the judge pointed out.

Judge Almeyda said that “it is difficult to accept that only Montero’s statement could serve as the final nail that would convince an impartial mind anent the other accused’s guilt.”

Back to top

For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
The Daily Tribune © 2006