Pichay v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 12, 2016, eight informations were filed against petitioner Prospero A. Pichay, Jr. (Pichay) before the Sandiganbayan. The charges included violations of Section X126.2(c)(1)(2) of the Manual of Regulation for Banks (MORB) in relation to Sections 36 and 37 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7653; Sections 19 and 66 of RA No. 8791 in relation to Section 36 of RA No. 7653; three counts of violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019; and three counts of malversation. Pichay, as Chairperson of the Local Water Utilities Administration, was accused of failing to secure prior approval from the President and the Monetary Board before purchasing shares of Express Savings Bank, Inc. (ESBI). Procedural History: On July 18, 2016, the Sandiganbayan issued a Hold Departure Order (HDO) against Pichay and his co-accused. Subsequently, on October 18, 2016, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the charges for violation of RA 8791 and the malversation charges. On November 17, 2017, the Sandiganbayan found probable cause to indict Pichay for violation of MORB and three counts of violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019, related to fund releases for ESBI shares, deposit/capital infusion, and another deposit. The Petition: On February 14, 2018, Pichay filed a Motion to Lift HDO. The Sandiganbayan denied this motion in a Resolution dated March 16, 2018, and subsequently denied his motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated June 19, 2018. Aggrieved, Pichay filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the Sandiganbayan's Resolutions for grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Lift HDO and sustaining its validity.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the Motion to Lift HDO. Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in sustaining the validity of the HDO.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Resolutions dated March 16, 2018 and June 19, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan in SB-16-CRM-0425 to 0432 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the Motion to Lift HDO: The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit. The issuance of a Hold Departure Order (HDO) is a valid restriction on an accused's right to travel, not an impairment thereof. The Court emphasized that courts possess inherent powers necessary for the ordinary and efficient exercise of jurisdiction, including the power to maintain jurisdiction and render it effective. The Sandiganbayan, as a special court tasked with hearing cases against public officers, is vested with these inherent powers. Therefore, the HDO was issued as an exercise of the Sandiganbayan's inherent power to preserve and maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and the person of Pichay. On Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in sustaining the validity of the HDO: The constitutional and statutory limitations on the right to travel do not delimit the inherent power of courts to use all necessary means to carry their orders into effect in criminal cases. Furthermore, Pichay posted bail, which obligates him to hold himself amenable at all times to the orders and processes of the court. This obligation inherently restricts his right to travel, as allowing him to leave the country would render court orders nugatory. The Court reiterated that a court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines, as this is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond. The condition to be amenable to court processes secures the accused's appearance and ensures that the court's jurisdiction is effective. Therefore, Pichay failed to establish grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan in issuing and upholding the HDO.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a Hold Departure Order (HDO) by the Sandiganbayan is a valid exercise of its inherent power to preserve and maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and the person of the accused, and is not an impairment of the right to travel, especially when the accused has posted bail and is thus under the power of the court.