The bail of six individuals accused in the abduction of sabungeros has been canceled by the court.

The court stated, “The fact that after the victims were made to board the van, they could no longer be traced and found even by police authorities, are strong pieces of factual evidence that show that the victims were detained or kidnapped."

This came as the Court of Appeals (CA) Third Division canceled the bail of six individuals accused in the abduction and serious illegal detention of the “missing sabungeros” from the Manila Arena in January 2022.

In an 18-page ruling, the CA granted the prosecution’s petition for certiorari, finding that the presiding judge of Manila RTC Branch 40 committed grave abuse of discretion by granting the accused's petition for bail.

The accused in the case are six security personnel of the Manila Arena.

They were granted temporary liberty in December 2023 after posting bail of P3 million each.

The National Prosecution Service has already asked the court for their rearrest.

The court found that “the respondent judge gravely abused her discretion when she granted the private respondents' petition for bail, notwithstanding the presence of strong evidence of their guilt.”

The court ruled that, contrary to the trial court’s findings, “there is strong evidence the private respondents kidnapped or detained the victims, or in any manner deprived them of liberty.”

It also stated that the trial court was incorrect in concluding there was no deprivation of liberty, arguing that the victims’ voluntary departure with the private respondents, and the absence of a scuffle or deadly weapons, did not negate the fact that they were detained or kidnapped.

“The fact that after the victims were made to board the van, they could no longer be traced and found even by police authorities, are strong pieces of factual evidence that show that the victims were detained or kidnapped,” the CA said.

The court also gave little weight to the recantation of one of the prosecution’s witnesses.

The CA stated that recantations are “exceedingly unreliable” and “can easily be obtained from witnesses through illegal means, e.g., intimidation, monetary considerations, or unwarranted reasons.”

It emphasized that the witness recanted “not because he was denying or rebuking his prior statements. Instead, his purported recantation was only due to the stress and strain of being a witness under the police's witness protection program.”

The court noted that the witness reaffirmed his earlier statements to investigating officers in open court.

“If indeed his earlier statements were not true, he could have simply denied them in open court when asked by the prosecution and the defense,” the court stated.

The court ordered a writ of certiorari to be issued, setting aside the resolution and order of the RTC.

The bail granted to the accused was rescinded with the CA’s denial of their bail petition.

Manila RTC Branch 40 has yet to take action on the prosecution’s motion, as it only received the CA’s decision on Tuesday, 28 January 2025.

The decision was promulgated on 20 December 2024 but was only received by the Department of Justice last week.