CRIMPRO: Rule 114 - Bail

(PEOPLE) v. (ESCOBAR)
# [Topic]
[GR#214300] [07/26/2017] [Leonen] [Pineda]
Petitioners: Respondents:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES MANUEL ESCOBAR

Recit Ready Summary

Escobar was suspected of conspiring in the kidnap for ransom of Mary Grace Cheng-Rosagas (Mary
Grace), daughter of Filipino-Chinese businessman Robert G. Cheng (Robert), and two (2) other victims.
Robert was the owner of Uratex Foam, Philippines, a manufacturing company of foams and mattresses.
The kidnapping occurred infront of Malcolm Hall, UP Diliman. Afterwards, the group headed to Club
Solvento, a resort in Calamba, Laguna owned by Escobar, who personally served them food. Some of the
accused stayed in Club Solvento namely, Villaver, Cesar Olimpiada, a certain Cholo, and Biboy Lugnasin,
and negotiated the price for the victims' release. Cheng paid the ransom of ₱15,000,000.00. Cancio Cubillas
(Cubillas), the group's driver, confessed to have received a total of'₱ l,250,000.00 for the kidnapping
operation. At 10:30 p.m. on the same day, Mary Grace, Burca, and Torres were finally released. They were
freed somewhere in Alaminos, Laguna.

On June 3, 2008, Escobar filed the First Bail Petition before the Regional Trial Court. During the
hearing on Escobar's bail application, Cubillas testified that Escobar and the Fajardo brothers were
Villaver's advisers. The Regional Trial Court denied Escobar's First Bail Petition. Escobar moved to
reconsider the Court of Appeal March 8, 2011 Decision. Pending the proceedings on Escobar's case, the
police arrested one (1) of the co-accused Fajardo brothers, Rolando Fajardo (Rolando), who applied for
bail before the Regional Trial Court. As in Escobar's bail hearing, the prosecution relied solely on Cubillas'
statements to establish the strength of Fajardo's guilt. The Court denied Rolando’s Bail Petition but
subsequently reversed it. Escobar filed another petition for bail (Second Bail Petition) before the
Regional Trial Court contending that if Rolando's petition for bail was granted based on the
unreliability of Cubillas' testimony, Escobar reasoned that the trial court should likewise grant him
provisional release. It was denied by the RTC but was subsequently granted by the CA, reversing
the RTC decision and ordering the RTC to determine the bail – which was latter on set at Php 300k.
The prosecution, through the OSG filed a Petition for Review claiming that the granting of the 2 nd Bail should
have been barred by Res Judicata. The Court ruled that ESCOBAR' S SECOND BAIL PETITION IS NOT
BARRED BY RES JUDICATA AS THIS DOCTRINE IS NOT RECOGNIZED IN CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS. Furthermore, Res Judicata only applies to a Final Judgementa which in this case, the
denial of the first Bail Petition was only an interlocutory order.

Facts

1. Escobar was suspected of conspiring in the kidnap for ransom of Mary Grace Cheng-Rosagas
(Mary Grace), daughter of Filipino-Chinese businessman Robert G. Cheng (Robert), and two (2)
other victims. Robert was the owner of Uratex Foam, Philippines, a manufacturing company of
foams and mattresses.
2. On June 18, 2001 at 7:40 a.m., Mary Grace, her bodyguard Valentin B. Torres (Torres), and her
driver Dionisio F. Burca (Burca) were passing by the front of Malcolm Hall, University of the
Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City when a vehicle blocked their way. Another group of suspects
helped as lookouts.
 3. Alleged group leader Rolando Villaver (Villaver) and some of the suspects then travelled and
detained Mary Grace, Burca, and Torres in an undisclosed location in Batangas. Afterwards, the
group headed to Club Solvento, a resort in Calamba, Laguna owned by Escobar, who personally
served them food.
4. Some of the accused stayed in Club Solvento to rest or sleep while the others, namely, Villaver,
Cesar Olimpiada, a certain Cholo, and Biboy Lugnasin, left to negotiate the price for the victims'
release. Cheng paid the ransom of ₱15,000,000.00.
5. At 7:00 p.m. on the same day, Villaver's group returned to Club Solvento, followed by co-accused
brothers Rolando and Harold Fajardo (the Fajardo brothers), who were alleged advisers of
Villaver. The group then locked themselves in a room where Villaver partitioned the ransom
money. Cancio Cubillas (Cubillas), the group's driver, confessed to have received a total
of'₱l,250,000.00 for the kidnapping operation.
6. At 10:30 p.m. on the same day, Mary Grace, Burca, and Torres were finally released. They were
freed somewhere in Alaminos, Laguna, more than 12 hours since they were abducted.

Procedural History (Important issues are here. Kindly take note of the facts na may underline and
bold)

1. Cubillas became a state witness. On June 3, 2002, he executed an extrajudicial confession and
implicated respondent Escobar as an adviser for Villaver. Cubillas believed that Escobar was
involved after he saw Escobar talk to Villaver while they were in Club Solvento. In his extrajudicial
confession, Cubillas also claimed that Escobar received a portion of the ransom money from
Villaver
2. On February 17, 2004, an Amended Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court charging
Escobar as a co-conspirator in the kidnapping for ransom.
3. Escobar was arrested on February 14, 2008
4. On June 3, 2008, Escobar filed the First Bail Petition before the Regional Trial Court. During
the hearing on Escobar's bail application, Cubillas testified that Escobar and the Fajardo brothers
were Villaver's advisers.
5. In the Order dated October 6, 2008, the Regional Trial Court denied Escobar's First Bail Petition.
The Petition for Bail filed by accused Manny Escobar is denied for lack of merit considering that state
witness Cancio Cubillas positively identified said accused as the owner of Club Solvento located in
Calamba, Laguna; that he was the one who served food to the group of Rolando Villaver, Jun Jun
Villaver, Ning Ning Villaver, Daimy Velasquez, Cholo, Cesar Olimpiada, Mike, Alan Celebre, Biboy
Lugnasin and witness himself, Cancio Cubillas; that it was also in said Club Solvento where Cancio
Cubillas, Jun Jun Villaver, Ning Ning Villaver, Danny Velasquez, Mike and Alan Celebre rested and
slept after Rolando Villaver, Cholo, Biboy Lugnasin and Cesar Olimpiada left to negotiate for the ransom
of kidnap victim Mary Grace Cheng Rosagas, and that on the night of June 18, 2001, Cubillas saw
accused Rolando Villaver gave part of the ransom money to him.
6. Escobar appealed before the Court of Appeals but the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial
of the First Bail Petition. It recognized that Cubillas' extrajudicial confession was generally
incompetent evidence against his co-accused and was admissible against himself only for being
hearsay and for violating the res inter alias acta rule.
- Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals invoked an exception to this rule and held that the Regional
Trial Court "did not rely solely on the extrajudicial confession of Cubillas"; rather, the trial court
also relied on Cubillas' testimony during the bail hearing.
7. Escobar moved to reconsider the Court of Appeal March 8, 2011 Decision
8. Pending the proceedings on Escobar's case, the police arrested one (1) of the co-accused Fajardo
brothers, Rolando Fajardo (Rolando), who applied for bail before the Regional Trial Court. As in
Escobar's bail hearing, the prosecution relied solely on Cubillas' statements to establish the
strength of Fajardo's guilt. In an Order dated September 13, 2011, the Regional Trial Court denied
Rolando's petition for bail
- However, in an Order dated October 14, 2011, the Regional Trial Court reversed its
previous order and granted Rolando's bail application.
- The reversal came about after the trial court considered that, according to Cubillas, "[Rolando]
was not present before, during and after the kidnapping." There was paucity of evidence on
Rolando's alleged participation.
9. Meanwhile, on October 27, 2011, the Court of Appeals denied Escobar's motion for
reconsideration. He no longer appealed before this Court.
10. By January 2012, only Escobar was left in detention pending the final judgment on the merits of
the case as all the other accused who had active participation in the kidnapping had been granted
bail. Escobar saw Rolando's release on bail as a new "development which warrant[ed] a different
view" on his own bail application.
11. Thus, on January 27, 2012, Escobar filed another petition for bail (Second Bail Petition) before
the Regional Trial Court. He noted that Cubillas could not explain how either Rolando or
Escobar advised Villaver and that both Rolando and Escobar were absent before, during,
and after the kidnapping. Hence, if Rolando's petition for bail was granted based on the
unreliability of Cubillas' testimony, Escobar reasoned that the trial court should likewise
grant him provisional release.
12. On April 26, 2012, the Regional Trial Court denied Escobar's Second Bail Petition on the ground
of res judicata, reasoning thus: "[i]n deference to the Decision of the Court of Appeals which has
already attained finality, accused's Petition for Bail which is actually a second petition for bail[,]
must be necessarily denied.
- Escobar moved for reconsideration but this was denied by the Regional Trial Court.
13. On January 14, 2013, he appealed before the Court of Appeals via Rule 65, arguing that the trial
court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying his Second Bail Petition
- In the Decision dated March 24, 2014, the Court of Appeals granted the petition
for certiorari and ordered the Regional Trial Court to determine the appropriate bail for
Escobar's provisional liberty.
14. The Court of Appeals denied the prosecution's Motion for Reconsideration. According to the Court
of Appeals, Escobar's Second Bail Petition was not barred by res judicata, which applies
only if the former judgment is a final order or judgment and not an interlocutory order. An
order denying a petition for bail is interlocutory in nature
15. On April 4, 2014, the Regional Trial Court fixed Escobar's bail at ₱300,000.00.
16. On November 6, 2014, the prosecution, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Petition
for Reviewvia Rule 45 before this Court. (Kindly see Points of Contention)
17. Subsequently, City Jail Warden Latoza informed this Court that there was no temporary restraining
order against the Regional trial Court April 4, 2014 Order, which fixed Escobar's provisional liberty
at ₱300,000.00.
- He mentioned that Escobar had posted the ₱300,000.00 bail, as ordered by the trial
court. Thus, he moved to allow Escobar's provisional release on bail.
- City Jail Warden Latoza alleged that Escobar had paid the necessary surety bond and attached
a copy of Traveller's Insurance Surety Corporation's surety bond undertaking to his
manifestation.88 However, the attached surety bond undertaking was neither notarized nor
approved by the Regional Trial Court judge.
Point/s of Contention

Escobar
On October 19, 2015, Escobar filed his Comment, arguing that res judicata did not apply here, that there
was no strong evidence of his guilt, and that the Court of Appeals could rectify errors of judgment in the
greater interest of justice.

People
In its Petition, the prosecution assails the grant of Escobar 's Second Bail Petition, the prosecution avers
that the doctrine of res judicata must be respected.

Issues Ruling
1. Whether Manuel Escobar's second petition for bail is barred by res judicata 1. NO
2. Whether respondent should be granted bail 2. YES

Rationale

I. ESCOBAR' S SECOND BAIL PETITION IS NOT BARRED BY RES JUDICATA AS THIS

DOCTRINE IS NOT RECOGNIZED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

- An interlocutory order denying an application for bail, in this case being criminal in nature, does
not give rise to res judicata. As in Trinidad, even if we are to expand the argument of the
prosecution in this case to contemplate "res judicata in prison grey" or double jeopardy, the
same will still not apply. Double jeopardy requires that the accused has been convicted or
acquitted or that the case against him or her has been dismissed or terminated without his
express consent. Here, while there was an initial ruling on Escobar's First Bail Petition,
Escobar has not been convicted, acquitted, or has had his case dismissed or terminated.
- Even assuming that this case allows for res judicata as applied in civil cases, Escobar’s Second
Bail Petition cannot be barred as there is no final judgment on the merits.
- Res judicata applies only when there is a final judgment on the merits of a case; it cannot
be availed of in an interlocutory order even if this order is not appealed.
- A decision denying a petition for bail settles only a collateral matter-whether accused is entitled
to provisional liberty-and is not a final judgment on accused's guilt or innocence. Unlike in a
full-blown trial, a hearing for bail is summary in nature
- BEING AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER, THE MARCH 8, 2011 COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION DENYING ESCOBAR'S FIRST BAIL PETITION DID NOT HAVE THE EFFECT
OF RES JUDICATA.
- The kidnapping case itself has not attained finality. Since res judicata has not attached to the
March 8, 2011 Court of Appeals Decision, the Regional Trial Court should have taken
cognizance of Escobar's Second Bail Petition and weighed the strength of the evidence of guilt
against him.
 II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ALREADY APPROVED ESCOBAR'S BAIL
PETITION

- City Jail Warden Latoza has informed this Court of the absence of any temporary restraining
order against the Court of Appeals Decision granting the Second Bail Petition, as well as the
Regional Trial Court Order fixing his bail at ₱300,000.00. Thus, the Court of Appeals March
24, 2014 Decision granting Escobar's provisional liberty can be executed upon the approval of
his bail bond, if he has indeed paid the surety bond

Dispositive Section
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated March 24, 2014 in CA-G.R.
SP No. 128189 is AFFIRMED.

Escobar may be provisionally released if he indeed has paid the surety bond that must be contained in a
public document and approved by the Regional Trial Court judge. Otherwise, he is directed to post bail.

SO ORDERED.