Court orders Durano to pay Carampatan

A writ of execution has been ordered by the Regional Trial Court against former policeman Engilberto Durano who was convicted of frustrated murder last year to pay the civil damages awarded by the court to his victim.

RTC judge Estella Alma Singco granted Lloyd Carampatan's motion for execution for him to be able to collect the P200,000 civil damages awarded to him following Durano's conviction for trying to kill him a few years ago.

Carampatan was a state witness in the murder of their neighbor, Rogelio Bacalso, wherein Durano was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Carampatan was also shot in the head by a man hired by Durano but he survived.

Durano is now serving his sentence at the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa.

In an order made in court yesterday, Singco said Durano's conviction for trying to kill Carampatan is already final and executory because he failed to file a motion for reconsideration and an appeal until now.

Durano was sentenced to eight years in jail and ordered to pay Carampatan P200,000 as civil damages after he was found guilty of frustrated murder last October 30. However, the decision was promulgated only on November 22 in Muntinlupa RTC because Durano was already in the New Bilibid Prison serving his earlier conviction.

Carampatan asked the court that a writ of execution be issued against Durano so that he can already claim the sum awarded to him. Carampatan wants the properties of Durano to be levied including his Daewoo Racer car, which is now dilapidating at the Cebu City Police Office after the police confiscated it in December 2000.

Durano's counsel Salvador Solima opposed the motion for execution claiming that when the case was promulgated he was already about to file his motion for reconsideration.

But Solima claimed he was told by the court personnel that the decision against his client has yet to be promulgated in Muntinlupa, where the accused is serving sentence.

Solima said that until now he has not received any notice about the promulgation of the decision of the case against his client, thus he failed to file a motion for reconsideration.

According to Solima, he already prepared a motion for reconsideration considering that the decision was allegedly based on pure presumption, but the court dismissed his opposition and ruled in favor of Carampatan. - Fred P. Languido