CA orders rearrest of suspects in missing ‘sabungeros’ case

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

The Court of Appeals reverses a Manila court's decision that allowed six suspects to post bail

MANILA, Philippines – The Court of Appeals (CA) has ordered the rearrest of the suspects in the years-long missing “sabungeros“ (cockfight enthusiasts) case.

In its 18-page ruling, the CA’s third division invalidated Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 40’s order that allowed the suspects to post bail. The appellate court also denied the alleged assailants’ fresh petition for bail, so the suspects are now ordered rearrested in essence.

The suspects charged for the non-bailable offense of kidnapping and serious illegal detention — Julie Patidongan, Mark Carlo Zabala, Virgilio Bayog, Roberto Matillano Jr., Gleer Codilla, and Johnry Consolacion — had been allowed by the court to post bail in December 2023.

There was an appeal against the bail, but the Manila court affirmed its decision to give the suspects provisional liberty.

The case involving the six suspects stemmed from the disappearance of six sabungeros in January 2022. The victims were headed to the Manila Arena to join a 6-cock stag derby, when they were kidnapped and were forced to board a gray van. They were never seen again.

When the Department of Justice charged the suspects, the prosecutors said the six conspired to kidnap the sabungeros. The police also issued a wanted poster against the suspects and offered a P1 million bounty.

The six were eventually arrested in September 2023. Although the police then said there was no bail recommended for the suspects, they secured temporary liberty later on.

As of December 2022, at least 34 sabungeros have gone missing, but only a few cases were filed in relation to the alleged crime — the CA case included.

Should have been no bail

The decision penned by Associate Justice Apolinario Bruselas Jr., with concurrences from Associate Justices Ruben Reynaldo Roxas and Jaime Fortunato Caringal, granted the prosecution’s petition for certiorari. This remedy is used to review another body’s decision or to determine if there was grave abuse of discretion in the ruling.

According to the appellate court, there was grave abuse of discretion when the court granted the petition for bail because there was strong evidence of the respondents’ guilt in the alleged crimes. Bail is only granted when the court thinks the evidence to prove guilt is weak.

The CA explained that contrary to the RTC’s ruling, there is strong evidence to prove that the respondents had kidnapped and detained the victims.

“We emphasize that when the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, not a matter of right, the power must be exercised with great care and caution because of the risk and stakes involved, especially when the crime is a serious one,” the ruling said.

The CA also disagreed with the RTC ruling that there was no deprivation of liberty in the case because the victims were only made to board a van.

“The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty, coupled with the intent of the accused to effect it. It includes not only the imprisonment of a person but also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time. It is not necessary that the victim be placed in an enclosure; neither is it necessary that the detention be prolonged,” the court said.

“It involves a situation where the victim cannot get out of the place of confinement or detention or is restricted or impeded in his liberty to move,” it added.

The court further explained that the fact that the victims were made to board the vehicle and could no longer be traced and be found by the police are “strong pieces of evidence” that show that the six had been kidnapped or detained. – Rappler.com