DOJ warned vs hastily using state witness in Barrameda slay case

A MILITANT legislator cautioned the justice department on Sunday against hastily using a state witness in the murder of Ruby Rose Barrameda-Jimenez, saying his testimony should be thoroughly examined to determine whether he should be discharged as a principal suspect in the crime.

“[Manuel] Montero should be indicted for his participation in the killing of Ruby Rose. He admitted he is one of those who participated in the killing of Ruby Rose,” said Party-list Rep. Liza Maza of Gabriela.

In issuing the statement, Maza noted that “there are technicalities and legal procedures to be considered first before he will turn as state witness.”

“The DOJ should study very well the case before making Montero a witness, like looking carefully on his credibility as a state witness,” she added.

Maza’s group is helping the family of Ruby Rose, sister of beauty queen Rochel Barrameda.

She warned that disreputable witnesses might result in a failed case.

“Marami na rin kasi na naging state witness, but it turned out na questionable ang personality. May iba pa bigla na lang nag-retract so nai-iba ang kuwento,” Maza said.

In this particular case, Maza said that Montero did not only see the alleged killing incident but claimed he was a perpetrator.

Montero, who worked as operations manager of the family-owned Buena Suerte Jimenez Fishing and Trading Co. (BSJ) for over 13 years from 1994, had admitted to a murder of Ruby Rose, which resulted in the recovery of a drum containing the body of Ruby Rose.

Maza said if Montero’s claims prove to be credible, then he should be entitled to be a state witness.

“We in the Gabriela condemned the killing of Ruby Rose. She is one of the hundreds of women in the country who are being abused and exploited,” Maza said.

Maza’s statement came after Raquel Fortun, professor of forensic pathology in the University of the Philippines, submitted a report to the DOJ where she explained that the dead woman that was recovered by the police at the bottom of the Manila Bay on June 10 was “very hard to identify.”

Fortun’s report also questioned the method by which the police identified the body as that of Ruby Rose.

“The body found was already in an advanced stage of decomposition. You cannot use identification of relatives and clothes of the body in this case,” said Fortun.

Fortun went to the crime laboratory of the National Police on July 21 to examine the pieces of evidence gathered by the police in the Ruby Rose murder case upon approval of the investigating DOJ panel.

During inspection, it was found out that the police have yet to conduct actual testing of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) samples from the body.

She added that the samples taken from the woman—specifically from her muscles and posterior—could also not be used to get conclusive DNA test results.

Fortun said the samples should have been taken from the bones, since the body was already decomposing.

In her four page report, Fortun said “an exhumation is recommended to clarify issues pertaining to identify the nature and significance of the reported chest fractures.

“Specifically a second examination will provide the opportunity to perform radiologic studies of the teeth and bone sampling for DNA analysis.”

Fortun explained that the “description of hematomas and incomplete fractures in the front chest is vague, considering that in several picture these could be injuries inflicted at or around the time of death.”

“It cannot be determined whether these injuries are from blunt force or are injuries, such as from a sharp weapon or even gunfire. Notably, the examiner who performed the autopsy did not offer an interpretation of what they could be,” she said.

The crucial omission potentially discredits the lone witness’s testimony that they strangled the victim to death and precludes the possibility of having stabbed or shot the victim. F. Marasigan