The person who was sentenced to death can accept the petition

After 5 years of canceling the case of investigation and re-trial, the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City opened the second appellate hearing to consider the appeal of Nguyen Van Hien, 49 years old, from Tay Ninh province, about the crimes. Killing; Robberyon March 25.

According to the first-instance judgment, around 9 am on March 7, 2015, Hien took a bus from Tan Chau town to Hoa Thanh district to go to his mother-in-law’s house to borrow money. When getting off the car at the Cao Dai Holy See in Tay Ninh, Hien bought fruit from a woman selling fruit and stole a fruit knife from this person.

At 15:00 on the same day, Hien asked Mr. Lam Van Nhien (driver motorbike taxi) to drive him to his mother-in-law’s house. On the way, Hien called this woman to ask for a loan, but his sister-in-law answered the phone “reprimanding” so he asked Mr. Hien to drive him to his house in Tan Chau district.

The verdict determined, at about 17-18h, when running to Duong Minh Chau district, at the foot of Ba Den mountain, Hien had an intention to rob Mr. Nhien’s motorbike, so he said this person drove him to the nearby custard-apple garden. to borrow money from a friend. Arriving at an empty place, Hien pulled out a knife and stabbed Mr Nhien many times, causing the victim to die on the spot.

After robbing the victim’s car and phone, Hien ran to Kenh Bridge to wash his hands, wash his blood-stained clothes, and throw away knives. Around 8 p.m. on the same day, Hien drove to Cambodia to bring the stolen property to take money to gamble. The next morning, Hien asked a motorbike taxi driver named Quang to drive him back to Vietnam and then took the car to Ho Chi Minh City to work. Two months later, Hien was arrested by the Tay Ninh Provincial Police.

During the investigation, he confessed to the crime. In September 2015, when receiving the investigation conclusion, Hien complained. The defendant said that the investigation process was coerced, beaten … mentally not sober, so he confessed to the crime.

At the end of 2015, the People’s Court of Tay Ninh province conducted a first-instance trial, saying that the investigation results were sufficient to conclude that Hien committed the crime as alleged, so the death penalty should be imposed for the crimes. Killing; Robbery.

Hien appealed, claiming that the victim’s motorbike was bought by Hien from a young man named Kha (also known as Khang, ethnic people) at the bus station in front of Tay Ninh bus station.

In July 2017, the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City held an appellate hearing, accepted Hien’s appeal, canceled the first-instance judgment of the People’s Court of Tay Ninh province, and returned the investigation file.

According to the trial panel, the first-instance judgment determined that the defendant was murder, but apart from the defendant’s initial confession, other evidences were insufficient. The field experiment process has many contradictions. The conclusion of the examination showed that the fingerprints on the helmet and motorbike were not Hien’s. The mark on the victim’s fingernail did not have Hien’s genotype…

In addition, the wound on the victim’s body is not clear from any weapon, whether it was from the knife Hien stole from the fruit seller or not, because the investigative agency could not seize the murder weapon. The investigative agency also did not find and clarify whether the fruit seller had lost her knife, but instead found another knife for Hien to identify as “the same knife as the murder knife”.

During the re-investigation process, Hien said, on the morning of March 7, 2015, from Thien An inn in Tan Chau town to a nearby hammock cafe to sleep. In the early afternoon, he took a bus to Hoa Thanh town to meet two acquaintances near the market drinking sugarcane juice and talking. Hien then took a bus to Tay Ninh bus station to find a friend but could not go to a cafe to watch TV.

Around 17:30, Hien went to the bus stop in front of Tay Ninh bus station and met a young man named Kha (Khang) accompanying the girl. This person said he wanted to sell the blue Wave motorbike to Hien for 1.5 million VND. Seeing that the car did not have a license plate, Hien paid one million, and he agreed to sell it.

Hien went to fill up gas to run through the Hoa Binh border gate to play, when he discovered that there was a phone in the trunk, he took it and called Mr. Quan to ask him to lead him through the border gate to Cambodia. Hien took the newly bought car and the phone to take money to play cards. The next morning, he returned from Cambodia to Vietnam and then took a car to Ho Chi Minh City to work as a hired worker until he was arrested. The defendant asserted that the initial confession was not true due to coercion.

However, the investigating agency and the Procuracy maintained that the prosecution of Hien was “grounded”.

In September 2018, the People’s Court of Tay Ninh province conducted the second first instance trial, not accepting Hien’s views, and sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment.

According to the trial panel, the defendant claimed to have bought a car from a man named Kha (Khang) but could not provide his information, address or identity, so there was no basis for acceptance.

The defendant claimed that he was coerced and beaten, but could not provide evidence or proof. The review of the video tapes and during the interrogation and field trials did not show the investigator beating the defendant. The minutes of the interrogation were also attended by lawyers and prosecutors.

In addition, the defendant’s testimony and the identification of the people involved about the wave vehicle, the victim’s phone are consistent with each other, in accordance with the field test record and the agency’s conclusions. investigate.

Disagreeing with this ruling, Hien continued to appeal. The victim’s family also appealed, asking the high court to consider if there are enough grounds to determine that Hien is the perpetrator, then propose an increase in the death penalty.

In order to serve the second appellate trial, the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City summoned investigators and assessors, but these people had applications for absenteeism.

Hien maintained his point of view, asserting that he did not kill people or rob property.

Defending Hien, lawyer Nguyen Huu Loc (Tay Ninh Bar Association) pointed out many “irrational” points in the conclusions of the first-instance proceedings. The time taken by the victim to carry the defendant from Cao Dai Holy See was 3pm, to the crime scene at 6pm with a distance of about 70km, which took 3 hours. At the same time, the testimonies of motorbike taxi drivers in this area said that from 9am on March 7, 2015, Mr. Nhien was seen driving the young man away and did not return. The results of the telecommunications company’s response also determined that there was no call from Mr. Hien to his mother-in-law on the date of the case at the time of the investigation conclusion… From that, the lawyer suggested the court declare the accused is “not guilty”.

After studying the file, the Appellate Court decided to cancel the second-instance judgment of the People’s Court of Tay Ninh province and return the investigation file for re-investigation due to “insufficient evidence to convict”.

According to the jury, the results of genetic testing on blood samples, cigarette butts and traces collected at the scene showed that “the genes belong to a male and a female smoker who cannot be identified, but not the sample.” blood and jealousy of the accused”. Currently these jealous samples are being stored at the forensic agency, the investigating agency needs to re-examine these gene samples to determine whose gene and blood samples belong to them.

Regarding the experimental investigation process, the investigative agency did not comply with regulations, using special vehicles to escort the accused during the move, while they should have been driven by evidence vehicles.

According to the defendant’s initial confession, the accused and Mr Nhien struggled, the defendant used many different positions to commit the crime, on the victim’s body there were all 35 knives and many other scratches. . But at the scene, when discovered, the victim was wearing glasses, leaning against a rubber tree, wearing a helmet on his head, a watch on his hand, there were no blood stains around the scene. “It is possible that this is not the first crime scene, but a fake scene. The perpetrators of the crime elsewhere moved the victim here,” the judgment said.

In addition, the defendant’s initial confession showed that, after killing Mr. Nhien, the defendant went to Kenh Bridge to wash his clothes, wash his hands and throw knives here. But the investigative agency did not get the knife that committed the crime, as well as the accused’s clothes at the time of the crime were stained with blood. The investigative agency needs to re-experiment this process to calculate the time to commit the crime and how long to move.

The results of the investigation also determined that, after committing the crime, the accused met Mr. Quan driving a motorbike taxi to ask this person to lead him to Cambodia. Therefore, it is necessary to take his testimony about Hien’s condition at that time, whether his clothes and car were stained with blood or not…

The investigative agency has not clarified Hien’s schedule when taking the bus, the time of exiting to Cambodia to determine whether an alibi is available or not; As well as not clarifying the frictions and conflicts between the victim and the man named Kha as the testimony of the victim’s family, and whether this person is an accomplice or not…

The jury also said that the investigation agency had not clarified what time the victim was murdered, whether or not there was a connection between the accused and the evidence at the scene.

“The defendant’s confession is only considered evidence if it is consistent with other evidences of the case, not used as the only evidence to convict”, the judgment stated and stated, the first-instance level has many serious procedural violations that need to be re-investigated.

Hai Duyen