Title
Silverio vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 94284
Decision Date
Apr 8, 1991
Petitioner repeatedly failed to appear for arraignment, traveling abroad without court permission, leading to passport cancellation and hold-departure order; SC upheld RTC's discretion, affirming right to travel can be restricted in criminal cases.
cancellation of passport
bail
constitutional law

Case Summary (G.R. No. 94284)

Factual Background

The People of the Philippines filed an Information against Ricardo C. Silverio on October 14, 1985 for violation of Section 20(4) of the Revised Securities Act. Petitioner posted bail and obtained provisional liberty. Thereafter several arraignment dates were scheduled and repeatedly cancelled because the accused failed to appear, the stated reason being that he had left the country. On January 26, 1988 the People filed an ex parte motion to cancel petitioner's passport and to issue a hold-departure order on the ground that petitioner had gone abroad without court permission and thereby caused postponements of arraignments. On April 4, 1988 the Regional Trial Court ordered the Department of Foreign Affairs to cancel petitioner's passport or deny any application and directed the immigration authority to prevent his departure. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied on July 28, 1988.

Procedural History

Petitioner sought relief by certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which denied the petition in a decision dated January 31, 1990. Reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied by resolution of June 29, 1990. Petitioner then filed a petition for review under Rule 45 in the Supreme Court on July 30, 1990, seeking annulment of the RTC orders of April 4 and July 28, 1988 and of the appellate rulings.

Petitioner’s Contentions

Ricardo C. Silverio contended that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the passport-cancellation and hold-departure orders. He argued that the orders rested on patently erroneous facts because an untried Motion to Quash rendered arraignments inappropriate. He further maintained that under Article III, Section 6, 1987 Constitution the right to travel may be impaired only in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, and therefore the courts could not lawfully restrict his travel on other grounds.

Trial Court and Appellate Findings

The RTC found that the Information was filed on October 14, 1985 and that by July 28, 1988 the case had never been arraigned because petitioner repeatedly failed to appear in person at scheduled arraignments. The RTC noted that petitioner had been abroad during these settings, that his bond had been cancelled twice, and that warrants of arrest had been issued for failure to appear. The RTC concluded that it had afforded petitioner ample consideration and that its orders were warranted. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record, concurred in those factual findings, and denied certiorari relief.

Legal Issues Presented

The principal legal questions presented were whether the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion or without jurisdiction in issuing orders cancelling passport and preventing departure, and whether Article III, Section 6, 1987 Constitution narrowed the circumstances in which courts may impair the right to travel so as to preclude the RTC’s measures in ordinary criminal proceedings and in enforcement of bail conditions.

Court's Findings on Factual Sufficiency and Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the courts below on the facts. The record showed that the Motion to Quash was filed after multiple arraignment settings had already been postponed because petitioner failed to appear, and that the Motion to Quash was set for hearing only on February 19, 1988. The Court held that the challenged RTC orders were not predicated on erroneous facts and that the RTC’s exercise of its judicial power in issuing hold-departure and passport-cancellation directives was founded on the established pattern of nonappearance, cancellation of bond, and issuance of warrants.

Constitutional Interpretation and Legal Doctrine

The Court construed Article III, Section 6, 1987 Constitution in light of the difference in phrasing between the 1935, 1973 and 1987 texts and in light of prevailing law on the powers of courts in criminal cases. The Court explained that the 1987 Constitution’s limitation on executive or administrative authority to restrict travel to matters of national security, public safety, or public health does not deprive courts of their inherent and ancillary powers to enforce judicial orders in criminal proceedings. The Court relied on the principle that when jurisdiction is conferred by law on a court, it may employ all auxiliary writs, process and other means necessary to effectuate that jurisdiction, citing Rule 135, Section 6, Rules of Court. The Court reaffirmed that the condition imposed by a bail bond that an accused make himself available to the court constitutes a valid restriction on the right to travel, as recognized in Manotoc, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, et al. and harking back to People v. Uy Tuising. The Court noted that an accused admitted to bail who violates bond conditions may be re-arrested and prevented from departing the Philippines without prior permission of the court.

Application to the Present Case

Applying these doctrines, the Court held that petitioner, having posted bail and having violated its condition

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms