Prosecution says motion can't reverse court's ruling

CEBU, Philippines - The lawyer representing the family of slain nursing student Ruby Jade Ruba yesterday expressed confidence that the court will maintain its ruling sentencing to life imprisonment two of the three accused in the crime that happened two years ago.

One of the convicted, Aivan Barabat, through his counsel Atty. Noel Archival, has filed a motion for reconsideration questioning the decision of Regional Trial Court Judge Branch 11 judge Ramon Daomilas.

But lawyer Rameses Villagonzalo, counsel of Ruba’s family, said there are witnesses and video footage that indicates his admission.

“It is very clear that the accused admitted during the interview by Chona Carreon (of GMA-7 Balitang Bisdak) that they unintentionally killed Ruba when the latter resist giving her cell phone,” Villagonzalo said.

He added there was positive identification of the witness that the convicted people were the ones who shot to death Ruba.

Villagonzalo said he will soon file his formal entry of the comment for the motion for reconsideration filed by Barabat’s lawyer last Tuesday.

Barabat asked the court to reconsider its decision and acquit him “in the interest of justice.”

Archival said the admission made before the media by Barabat is inadmissible as evidence as the prosecution failed to establish the authenticity and correctness of the recording of said admission.

The lawyer added the prosecution did not present any proof of the extra-judicial confession of Barabat caught on video was a genuine reproduction.

Daomilas found Barabat and Mark Anthony Gabriel guilty of robbery with homicide and cleared the third accused, Karl Marx Caticiano, for lack of evidence that show the latter participated in the robbery with homicide.

Daomilas ruled he tried to see if there was even a slight trace of fear or pressure on both accused, but there is none during their admission of the crime for killing Ruba.

“The admission of both accused, made openly before the media, can be given credence. There was no showing that the media was controlled by the police in terms of questions asked,” the judge said in his decision. (FREEMAN)