Case Summary (G.R. No. 241742)
Facts
Pichay was charged with eight offenses related to his purchase and capitalization of Express Savings Bank, Inc. shares without prior approval of the President (Administrative Order No. 59) and the Monetary Board (MORB Section X126.2). The charges included banking regulation violations (MORB and RA 7653), unlawful bank practices (RA 8791), graft (RA 3019), and malversation. Following the filing of informations, the Sandiganbayan issued an HDO to prevent Pichay’s departure from the Philippines.
Procedural History
- October 18, 2016: Dismissal of two counts involving RA 8791 violations and three counts of malversation.
- November 17, 2017: Finding of probable cause on MORB/RA 7653 and three counts of RA 3019 violations.
- February–March 2018: Pichay moved to lift the HDO; the Sandiganbayan denied the motion.
- June 2018: Motion for reconsideration denied.
Pichay filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
Issue
Did the Sandiganbayan gravely abuse its discretion in maintaining the HDO and denying Pichay’s Motion to Lift it, thereby unduly restricting his constitutional right to travel?
Applicable Law and Analysis
- Right to Travel (1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 6): Protected except for national security, public safety, public health, or as provided by law.
- Inherent Judicial Powers: Courts possess implied powers necessary to preserve jurisdiction and enforce orders (Defensor-Santiago v. Vasquez). Special courts like the Sandiganbayan inherit full judicial powers to issue HDOs even without express statutory grant.
- Bail and Travel Restriction: Under Rule 114, Sec. 1, bail secures the accused’s appearance and subjects him to court processes. Jurisprudence (Manotoc Jr. v. CA; People v. Uy Tusing) consistently permits courts to prohibit bail-admitted persons from leaving the Philippines to preserve jurisdiction and prevent frustration of justice.
Pichay argued that no constitutional or statutory ground justified travel restriction and that bail does not waive the constitutional right to travel. The Court rejected this, holding that bail inherently carries the condition of availability to court orders and that the HDO is a valid exercise of the Sandiganbayan’s power to maintain it
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 241742)
Case Citation
- G.R. Nos. 241742 and 241753–59
- Third Division, May 12, 2021
- Ponente: Justice Delos Santos
- Concurrence: Leonen (Chairperson), Hernando, Inting, and J. Lopez, JJ.
Nature of the Petition
- Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure
- Challenges Sandiganbayan Resolutions of March 16, 2018 and June 19, 2018 in SB-16-CRM-0425 to 0432
- Seeks lifting of the Hold Departure Order (HDO) issued against Prospero A. Pichay, Jr.
Factual Background
- July 12, 2016: Office of the Special Prosecutor filed eight informations against Pichay
- Charges include:
- Violation of Section X126.2(c)(1)(2) of the MORB in relation to Sections 36 and 37 of RA 7653
- Violation of Sections 19 and 66 of RA 8791 in relation to Section 36 of RA 7653
- Three counts of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019
- Three counts of malversation
- Alleged failure to secure prior approval from the President (Administrative Order No. 59) and Monetary Board (MORB) before purchasing shares of ESBI
- July 18, 2016: Sandiganbayan motu proprio issued Hold Departure Order prohibiting travel abroad without its permission
Procedural History
- October 18, 2016: Dismissal of charges for violation of RA 8791/RA 7653 and three counts of malversation
- November 17, 2017: Probable cause finding for:
- Violation of Section X126.2(c)(1)(2) of the MORB and Sections 36, 37 of RA 7653
- Three counts of Section 3(e) RA 3019 relating to specific fund releases and deposits
- February 14, 2018: Pichay filed Motion to Lift HDO
- March 16, 2018: Sandiganbayan denied Motion to Lift HDO for lack of merit
- June 19, 2018: Motion for Reconsideration de