People v. Escobar

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 214300. September 14, 2016.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANUEL ESCOBAR, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 September 2016 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 214300: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANUEL ESCOBAR

Manuel Escobar (Escobar), also known as Manny Escobar, is charged with kidnapping for ransom. 1 He is the accused in Criminal Case No. Q-02-112455, pending before the Regional Trial Court, 2 and the respondent in this case. 3

In an Amended Information dated February 17, 2004, Escobar was among the accused in the kidnapping for ransom of Mary Grace Cheng-Rosagas, her driver Dionisio F. Burca, and her bodyguard Valentin B. Torres. 4 The crime allegedly happened on June 18, 2001 at the University of the Philippines — Diliman campus. 5 The case was filed before Branch 81 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. 6

On June 3, 2008, Escobar filed before the Regional Trial Court a Petition for Bail (First Bail Petition), 7 which was denied on October 6, 2008. 8 On March 8, 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed 9 the denial of the First Bail Petition.

Relying on the grant of bail to his co-accused Rolando Fajardo, Escobar filed another Petition for Bail (Second Bail Petition) on January 27, 2012. 10 The Regional Trial Court denied the Second Bail Petition on April 26, 2012. 11 This was overturned by the Court of Appeals. 12

On March 24, 2014, the Court of Appeals granted 13 Escobar's appeal and directed the trial court to determine the appropriate bail for his provisional liberty. 14

Aggrieved, the People of the Philippines filed before this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari15 assailing the Court of Appeals' grant of bail to Escobar.

Meanwhile, on January 26, 2016, a certain Manuel Dacquel Escobar wrote Atty. Basilia T. Ringol, Assistant Chief of Office of the Judicial Records Office of this Court, a letter 16 requesting that he be issued a certificate of clearance for the renewal of his firearm license.

In the Affidavit 17 attached to his letter, Manuel Dacquel Escobar alleges that he is not the same person as the accused Escobar. 18 Manuel Dacquel Escobar claims that he left for the United States on October 12, 1998 and returned to the Philippines only on March 25, 2003. 19 Thus, he could not have been present when the case for kidnapping for ransom was filed on September 30, 2002. 20 Manuel Dacquel Escobar attached photocopies of his passports, though these had not been certified as true copies by the Department of Foreign Affairs. 21

According to Manuel Dacquel Escobar, the Regional Trial Court refused to issue him a certificate of no pending criminal case because the trial court's records show that there is a pending case against Escobar. 22

For resolution is whether Manuel Dacquel Escobar's letter dated January 26, 2016 should be given due course.

Manuel Dacquel Escobar seeks relief using the wrong remedy. Under Rule 45, Section 1 23 of the Rules of Court, this Court only decides on questions of law of a party appealing the decision of the appropriate lower court.

Section 4.4 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10591, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act, states that the Regional Trial Court where an applicant resides has the jurisdiction to issue the clearance. Thus: EATCcI

Section 4. Standards and Requisites for Issuance of and Obtaining a License to Own and Possess Firearms

xxx xxx xxx

4.4 The written application to own and possess firearm/s shall be filed at the FEO [Firearms and Explosives Office], in three (3) legible copies duly notarized, and must be accompanied by the original copy of the following requirements:

a) Clearances issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) that has jurisdiction over the place where the applicant resides and/or the Sandiganbayan as the case may be, showing that he/she has not been convicted by final judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude or that he/she has not been convicted or is currently an accused in any pending criminal case before any court of law for a crime that is punishable with a penalty of more than two (2) years[.] (Emphasis supplied)

Manuel Dacquel Escobar should pursue his legal remedies by securing the appropriate clearances before the competent first- or second-level court if he truly is not the same person as the accused Escobar.

WHEREFORE, this Court resolves to DENY the letter dated January 26, 2016 for being the wrong remedy.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

 

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, p. 159.

2. Id. at 52, Court of Appeals Decision dated March 8, 2011.

3. Id. at 10, Petition.

4. Id. at 52.

5. Id. at 53.

6. Id. at 52.

7. Id. at 53.

8. Id. at 13.

9. Id. at 51-61. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario L. Guariña III and Apolinario D. Bruselas Jr. of the Eighth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

10. Id. at 13.

11. Id. at 64. The Order was penned by Acting Presiding Judge/Pairing Judge Charito B. Gonzales of Branch 81 of the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City.

12. Id. at 45, Court of Appeals Decision dated March 24, 2014.

13. Id. at 36-46. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Socorro B. Inting of the Eighth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

14. Id. at 45.

15. Id. at 10-35.

16. Id. at 156-158.

17. Id. at 157-158.

18. Id. at 157.

19. Id.

20. Id.

21. Id. at 160-164.

22. Id. at 157.

23. RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. 1 provides:

 SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.