Case Digest (G.R. No. 94284)
Facts:
Ricardo C. Silverio v. The Court of Appeals, Hon. Benigno G. Gaviola, as Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch IX, and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 94284, April 08, 1991, Supreme Court Second Division, Melencio‑Herrera, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Ricardo C. Silverio was charged on October 14, 1985 with violation of Section 20(4) of the Revised Securities Act in Criminal Case No. CBU‑6304 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu. He posted bail and was thereby conditionally released pending trial. Several arraignment dates were set but repeatedly cancelled because Silverio failed to appear; the RTC record reflects that the nonappearances were attributable to his being abroad.
On January 26, 1988, the People of the Philippines filed an urgent ex parte motion seeking cancellation of Silverio’s passport and issuance of a hold‑departure order, alleging that Silverio had left the country repeatedly without court permission, causing postponements of arraignments and hearings. Over petitioner’s opposition, the RTC on April 4, 1988 ordered the Department of Foreign Affairs to cancel Silverio’s passport or deny any application and directed the Commission on Immigration to prevent his departure. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on July 28, 1988; the RTC emphasized that his bond had been cancelled twice and warrants of arrest had issued due to repeated failures to appear.
Petitioner sought relief via certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA) (CA‑G.R. SP No. 15827), which denied his petition in a decision dated January 31, 1990 and likewise denied reconsideration on June 29, 1990. Petitioner then filed this Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari in the Supreme Court on July 30, 1990, challenging the CA ruling and the RTC orders as amounts to grave abuse of discretion and as unconstitutional limitations on the right to travel under the 1987 Constitution. He argued (1) the RTC orders ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the orders (passport cancellation and hold‑departure) on the basis of allegedly patently erroneous facts (in particular, that scheduled arraignments were precluded by a pending Motion to Quash)?
- Under the 1987 Constitution, may a court lawfully restrict an accused’s right to travel (including issuance of hold‑departure or passport cancellation orders) on grounds other than “national security, public safety, or public health,” particularly to enforce ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)