Silverio v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ricardo C. Silverio was charged with violation of Section 20 (4) of the Revised Securities Act in Criminal Case No. CBU-6304 before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. He posted bail for his provisional liberty following the filing of the Information on October 14, 1985. Procedural History: Despite posting bail, Silverio failed to appear for several scheduled arraignments, leading to the cancellation of his bail bond and the issuance of warrants for his arrest. The prosecution filed a motion to cancel his passport and issue a hold-departure order, which the Regional Trial Court granted on April 4, 1988, finding that Silverio had left the country without court permission. Silverio's motion for reconsideration was denied on July 28, 1988. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was also denied on January 31, 1990. The Petition: Petitioner seeks a review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's orders. He contends that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing the hold-departure order based on erroneous facts, specifically claiming a pending motion to quash prevented arraignment. Furthermore, he argues that under the 1987 Constitution, the right to travel can only be impaired for reasons of national security, public safety, or public health, not for failure to appear in court.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the hold-departure order, and whether the RTC's order was based on patently erroneous facts, specifically regarding the pendency of a Motion to Quash the Information. Whether the right to travel can be impaired upon lawful order of the Court, even on grounds other than the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, under the 1987 Constitution.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the RTC's orders were based on substantial evidence and that the right to travel can be validly restricted by a court order when an accused has violated the conditions of his bail bond by failing to appear for scheduled hearings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and erroneous facts: The Court found no reversible error. The records showed that the Information was filed on October 14, 1985, and as of July 28, 1988, the accused had yet to be arraigned. Several scheduled arraignments were cancelled due to the petitioner's failure to appear, primarily because he was abroad. The petitioner had never appeared in person before the court since the Information was filed, and his bail bond had been cancelled twice, with warrants of arrest issued against him for the same reason. The Court noted that the pendency of the Motion to Quash came about only after several settings for arraignment had been scheduled and cancelled due to the petitioner's non-appearance, thus refuting the claim of patently erroneous facts. The RTC had given the petitioner more than enough consideration, and the limit had been reached. On the impairment of the right to travel: The Court held that the submission that the right to travel can only be impaired on grounds of national security, public safety, or public health under the 1987 Constitution is not well-taken. While Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution states that the right to travel shall not be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law, this provision should not be construed as delimiting the inherent power of the courts to use all means necessary to carry their orders into effect in criminal cases pending before them. The condition imposed upon an accused released on bail to make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction of his right to travel. This principle was affirmed in Manotoc, Jr. v. Court of Appeals and People v. Uy Tuising. A person facing criminal charges may be restrained by the court from leaving the country or compelled to return, especially when warrants of arrest have been issued for violation of bail conditions. Allowing an accused to leave the country at his pleasure would render court orders and processes nugatory, thus undermining the administration of justice. The offended party in any criminal proceeding is the People of the Philippines, and it is in their interest that prosecutions proceed to finality without undue delay, with the accused amenable at all times to court orders and processes.
Main Doctrine
The right to travel of an accused facing criminal charges, who has posted bail but violated its conditions by failing to appear at scheduled hearings, can be validly restricted by a court order preventing departure from the Philippines, to ensure the accused's availability for trial and to prevent the frustration of justice. This restriction is a necessary means to carry into effect the court's orders and processes.