Thursday, October 02, 2008 2 bank executives cleared of maul raps
A REGIONAL Trial Court Judge has reversed the decision of a municipal trial court judge over the conviction of two bank officials for slight physical injuries.
RTC Judge Virginia H. Europa in a decision promulgated recently exonerated Domingo Ramos and Apollo Alquiza, senior vice president and senior assistant vice president of Equitable PCI Bank (now Banco de Oro), respectively from slight physical injury charges.
Europa reversed an earlier verdict of Branch 5 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in Davao City finding the two guilty and sentencing them a jail term of 20 days last March 3, 2008.
The case was filed by a certain Joel Endonela, stemming from an incident near a coffee shop at Landco Building in Davao City last January 23, 2006. The case against a third accused, one Arturo Gamaya, driver of the bank executives, was dismissed early on.
In overturning the MTCC 5 decision, Judge Europa gave credence to the accused's appeal memorandum stating that the lower court erred in convicting them.
Europa found merit in four of the five grounds cited by the bankers in their appeal.
The bank officers said the court a quo (MTTC Branch 5) made a mistake when it held that they "repeatedly hit, kicked and choked the complainant despite the lack of medical evidence to support the said finding".
The bank executives' position was supported by testimonies of two physicians who examined Endonela and admitted by Endonela himself during cross examination.
The doctors’ findings as contained in the medical certificate indicated that accuser Endonela suffered only an injury in the upper lip and an abrasion in the right wrist.
This belied the accuser's claim that he was repeatedly hit, kicked and punched by all three accused, while lending credence to the testimony of the defense that driver Gamaya punched Endonela in the face thinking that he was about to attack Ramos.
The RTC agreed that the MTCC erred when it convicted Alquiza despite the testimony of his co-accused and the other witnesses that he did not lay a hand on the complainant.
The RTC also pointed out that the testimonies of witnesses presented by prosecution were identical despite the fact that these witnesses were not in one place when the incident happened. (BOT)
