People v. Suntay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dr. Antonio Nubla filed a complaint against Emilio Suntay alleging that on June 21, 1954, Suntay took his 16-year-old daughter, Alicia Nubla, from school with lewd design and had carnal knowledge of her. An Assistant City Attorney initially recommended dismissal for lack of merit, but the complainant's attorney urged the filing of a seduction charge. Procedural History: On January 10, 1955, petitioner Emilio Suntay applied for and was granted a passport. He left the Philippines for the U.S. on January 20, 1955. On January 31, 1955, Alicia Nubla swore to a complaint charging Suntay with seduction, which was filed in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City after preliminary investigation. On February 9, 1955, the private prosecutor moved for an order directing government agencies, particularly the National Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Foreign Affairs, to take steps to bring Suntay back to the Philippines. The Court granted this motion on February 10, 1955. Subsequently, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs cabled the Philippine Ambassador to the U.S. to order the Consul General in San Francisco to cancel Suntay's passport and compel his return. This order was not implemented due to the commencement of the present proceedings. Suntay's counsel requested reconsideration from the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and filed a motion for reconsideration in the criminal case. Both requests were denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to annul the order of the Court of First Instance and a writ of prohibition to enjoin the Secretary for Foreign Affairs from cancelling his passport without a hearing. He argued that the Court's order was illegal as it usurped the discretionary power of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and that the cancellation of his passport violated his right to due process as it was done without a hearing.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance has the jurisdiction to order the Department of Foreign Affairs to take steps to bring an accused back to the Philippines, including the cancellation of his passport. Whether the Secretary of Foreign Affairs can cancel a passport without a prior hearing.
Ruling
The petition is denied, with costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance to order the return of the accused: The Court held that the order directing the Department of Foreign Affairs to take proper steps to bring the accused back to the Philippines so that he may be dealt with in accordance with law is not beyond or in excess of its jurisdiction. When jurisdiction is conferred by law, all auxiliary writs, processes, and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed. Section 6 of Rule 124 allows the adoption of any suitable process or mode of proceeding if the procedure is not specifically pointed out by the rules. The Court clarified that it did not specify the exact step the Secretary must take, but rather directed the Department to facilitate the accused's return to face criminal charges. On the cancellation of a passport without a prior hearing: The Court ruled that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs has the discretion to withdraw or cancel a passport already issued, as provided by Section 25 of Executive Order No. 1, series of 1946. While this discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily, it is permissible when the passport holder is facing a criminal charge and has left the country, which can be interpreted as an attempt to flee from justice. In such cases, the Secretary's decision to cancel the passport is not whimsical or capricious. The Court further explained that due process does not always necessitate a hearing, especially when the discretion is exercised upon undisputed facts, such as the filing of a serious criminal charge. Therefore, the absence of a hearing does not violate the due process clause of the Constitution.
Main Doctrine
The Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to order government agencies to take steps to bring an accused back to the Philippines, including the cancellation of his passport, when such action is necessary to ensure his appearance in court to face criminal charges, and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs may exercise his discretion to cancel a passport without a prior hearing when the passport holder is facing serious criminal charges and has left the country, as such action is not whimsical or capricious and does not violate due process.