Last update: November 14 2006, 11:50 PM
INQUIRER HEADLINES - METRO
 

Missed breaks for teen accused of poisoning

November 14, 2006

AT 16 going on 17, Peter (not his real name) is far too young to be losing sleep over missed opportunities.

But as one of two teenagers accused of poisoning a classmate at the Philippine Science High School, he seems to be losing one chance in a lifetime after another.

For one, he will not be able to leave the country to enroll in either of the two American universities that had awarded him a scholarship, one of them the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Last month, Judge Ma. Lourdes Giron of Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 102 to issue a hold departure order against Peter, based on a petition filed by the complainant.

The court said the order dated Oct. 26 was not an infringement on Peter’s right to travel, but rather a way to ensure that he would remain under the court’s jurisdiction.

Private prosecutor Eugenio Villareal hailed the ruling, saying it “provided a sense of security” to the complainant since it ensured that the respondent would remain subject to the coercive powers of the court.

He earlier raised concerns that Peter was capable of fleeing to the United States, since he had applied for and had been accepted to MIT and Colgate University, a private college based in New York.

Peter, along with a fellow student, stands accused of pouring a vial of mercurous nitrate into a water jug, from which a schoolmate drank, causing her to sustain severe internal injuries, on Feb. 24.

As a result of the poisoning, the victim, Marie Angelynne Fabro, now 17, had to undergo seven dialysis sessions at the National Kidney and Transplant Institute, for which she needed 11 blood transfusions. Doctors are still monitoring her for traces of mercury in the bloodstream, which may manifest at any time and attack her liver, kidneys, or other internal organs.

Peter’s arraignment was scheduled yesterday, but it was postponed after his lawyers asked the court to reconsider its order dismissing their petition to defer the proceedings.

©2006 www.inquirer.net all rights reserved

Send your feedback here

 
< Back