CASE: 412. People vs.
Manuel Escobar ● Bail: security for temporary release of person arrested & detained but
Doctrine: Res judicata applies only in civil case final judgment not criminal
case interlocutory order. Order disposing petition for bail is interlocutory, &
doesn’t attain finality when a new matter warrants 2nd look on bail application
Rule 45 Petition assails CA Decision to grant Manuel 2nd petition for bail
● Manuel was suspected of conspiring kidnapping for ransom of Mary
Grace, daughter of Filipino-Chinese businessman Robert, & 2 others
○ Robert owned Uratex Foam manufacturing foams & mattresses.
● 6/18/01 7:40AM, Mary, bodyguard Valentin Torres, & driver Dionisio
Burca passed by Malcolm Hall, UP Diliman when a car blocked the way
■ Another group of suspects helped as lookouts.
○ In police uniform, 4 armed men forced Mary & Valentin inside the
car
● leader Rolando Villavero & suspect travelled & detained them in Batangas
○ went to Club Solvento, owned by Manuel, who served them food
■ Some of accused stayed in Solvento to rest while others left to
negotiate the price for the victims' release.
● Robert paid P15M ransom & at 7PM, Rolando's group returned to
Solvento, followed by the Fajardo brothers, who were advisers
○ group locked themselves in a room where Rolando partitioned ransom
■ Driver Cancio Cubillas confessed to receive P1.25M for the kidnap
● 10:30PM they were released in Alaminos, Laguna, 12hrs after abduction
○ 6/3/02 State witness Cancio executed an extrajudicial confession &
implicated Manuel as Rolando’s adviser & receiver of ransom
● 2/17/04, Amended Info was filed before RTC charging Manuel as a co-
conspirator in the kidnapping for ransom |2/14/08 Manuel was arrested.
○ 6/3 Manuel filed 1st Bail Petition & during hearing, Cancio testified
● 10/6 RTC denied | CA Affirmed & denied MR: Cancio’s EC & testimony
○ police arrested Rolando Fajardo who applied for bail - denied
■ 10/14 RTC reversed & granted Rolando's bail application.
● 2012 only Manuel was left in detention pending final judgment on
merits of the case as all who participated had been granted bail.
○ Manuel saw Rolando's release on bail as a new "development
which warranted a different view" on his own bail application.
● 1/27/12 Manuel filed 2nd bail petition: Cancio can’t explain how Rolando
or Manuel advised Rolando & that both were absent in kidnapping
○ if Rolando's bail petition was granted based on Cancio' testimony’s
unreliability, RTC should likewise grant him provisional release.
● 4/26/12 RTC denied: res judicata. 3/24/14 CA overturned: P300k
ISSUE: Manuel's 2nd Bail Petition is not barred by res judicata as this
doctrine is not recognized in criminal proceedings.
Page 1 of 2
whose guilt hasn’t yet been proven in court beyond reasonable doubt.
○ Right to bail is cognate to fundamental right to be presumed innocent.
● Bail may be a matter of right or judicial discretion
○ Accused has right to bail if offense charged isn’t punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment" before conviction by RTC.
■ if accused is charged with an offense the penalty of which is death,
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment — "regardless of the stage
of the criminal prosecution" — & when evidence of one's guilt is
not strong, then accused's prayer for bail is subject to the
discretion of the trial court.
● Penalty for kidnapping for ransom is death, reduced to reclusion perpetua
○ Manuel's bail is a matter of judicial discretion, provided evidence of
his guilt is not strong
● R114 S4 Bail: Persons in custody admitted to bail as a matter of right, w/
sufficient sureties, or released on recognizance (a) before/after conviction
by MeTC, MTC, MTCC, or MCTC & (b) before RTC conviction of offense
not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment.
○ S7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. — No person charged
with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is
strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.
● 2nd Bail Petition wasn’t barred by res judicata (a matter adjudged)
○ Doctrine bars re-litigation of the same claim between parties, also
known as claim preclusion or bar by former judgment.
■ “issue preclusion or conclusiveness of judgement” bars re-
litigation of same issue on a different claim between same parties,
○ Rule of reason, justice, fairness, expediency, practical necessity, &
public tranquillity.
● S47 R39 Effect of Judgments or Final Orders: Effect of a judgment or
final order rendered by a court of PH, having jurisdiction to pronounce the
judgment or final order, may be as follows:
(b) judgment or final order is, w/ respect to matter directly adjudged or any
other matter that could‘ve been raised in relation thereto, conclusive
between parties & their successors in interest by title subsequent to
commencement of action or special proceeding, litigating for same
thing & under the same title & in the same capacity;
(a) Other litigation between same parties or their successors in interest,
that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or
 final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or
which was actually & necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.
● Expressly applicable in civil cases, res judicata settles with finality the
dispute between the parties or their successors-in-interest.
○ has no bearing on criminal proceedings
● R124 S18. Application of certain rules in civil procedure to criminal cases:
Rules 42, 44 to 46 & 48 to 56 relating to procedure in CA & SC in original
& appealed civil cases shall be applied to criminal cases insofar as they
are applicable & not inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.
○ while certain Rules of Civil Procedure may be applied in criminal
cases, Rule 39 is excluded from the enumeration
● Interlocutory order denying an application for bail, in this case being
criminal in nature, does not give rise to res judicata.
○ Double jeopardy requires that accused has been convicted or
acquitted or that the case against him or her has been dismissed or
terminated without his express consent.
● While there’s an initial ruling on Manuel's First Bail Petition, Manuel has
not been convicted, acquitted, or his case dismissed or terminated
○ Assuming case allows res judicata as applied in civil cases, Manuel's
2nd Bail Petition can’t be barred as there’s no final judgment on
merits.
● Res judicata requires the concurrence of ff elements:
1. The judgment sought to bar the new action must be final
2. Decision rendered by a court having jurisdiction over parties & SM
3. The disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; &
4. There’s between 1st & 2nd actions, identity of parties, of SM, & of COA
● In deciding, court issues either final judgment or an interlocutory order
○ Final judgment: leaves nothing else to be done because period to
appeal has expired or highest tribunal has already ruled on the case.
○ Interlocutory order: if between case beginning & termination, court
decides on a point that’s not yet final judgment on entire controversy.
● settles only some incidental matter arising in an action”
■ Something else needs to be done in primary case (final judgment)
● Res judicata applies only when there’s final judgment on case merits
○ can’t be availed of in interlocutory order even if it’s not appealed.
● Prosecution acknowledged 1st order denying bail is interlocutory
○ merits of case must still be threshed out in full-blown proceeding
■ Being an interlocutory order, 3/8/11 CA Decision denying Manuel's
First Bail Petition did not have the effect of res judicata.
○ kidnapping case itself has not attained finality.
Page 2 of 2
● Since res judicata hasn’t attached to 3/8/11 CA Decision, RTC should
have taken cognizance of Manuel's 2nd Bail Petition & weighed the
strength of the evidence of guilt against him.
○ CA may still reverse its Decision, notwithstanding denial of 1st Bail
● Rules of procedure should not be interpreted as to disadvantage a party &
deprive him or her of fundamental rights & liberties.
○ judgment or order may be modified where executing it in its present
form is impossible or unjust in view of intervening facts/circumstances
● Where facts & circumstances transpire which render execution impossible
or unjust & it therefore becomes necessary, in the interest of justice, to
direct its modification to harmonize disposition w/ prevailing circumstances
● Appellate courts may correct "errors of judgment if blind & stubborn
adherence to the doctrine of immutability of final judgments would involve
the sacri8ce of justice for technicality."
○ Thus, Manuel may file a 2nd petition for bail, particularly if there are
"new matter or fact which warrants a different view.
○ Rolando's release on bail is a new development in Manuel's case.
● CA has pointed out that other co-conspirators are already out on bail:
○ Rolando was granted bail because Cancio' testimony was weak.
■ Both participated in same way, but Manuel's bail was denied."
● Manuel's fundamental rights & liberty are being deprived in the meantime.
○ Art III, Sec 13 1987 Constitution: All persons, except those charged
with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt
is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable.
● Same evidence used by RTC to grant bail to Rolando wasn’t used
similarly in Manuel's favor.
○ We can’t ignore “conspiracy” & others were all granted bail except him.
■ Rolando was granted bail due to weakness of Cancio' testimony
○ In light of the circumstances after the denial of Manuel's First Bail
Petition, his 2nd Bail Petition should have been given due course.
It should not be denied on the technical ground of res judicata.
● CA 3/24/14 Decision granting Manuel's provisional liberty can be
executed upon bail bond approval, if he has indeed paid surety bond.
○ Determination is only for the purpose of bail & is w/o prejudice for the
prosecution to submit additional evidence to prove Manuel's guilt in the
course of the proceedings in the primary case.
○ D loaned De , writ of execution , De levied upon, property bought by DI
only participant COS annotated on back 6/1/2020,
DISPOSITION: DENIED