G.R. No. 94284 - Silverio vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 94284)

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Petitioner was charged by Information on 14 October 1985 and posted bail. Over a period of time, arraignments were repeatedly scheduled and cancelled because petitioner failed to appear. On 26 January 1988, the People filed an ex parte motion to cancel petitioner’s passport and to issue a hold-departure order, alleging that petitioner had traveled abroad repeatedly without court permission, causing delays. The RTC issued an order on 4 April 1988 directing the Department of Foreign Affairs to cancel or deny petitioner’s passport and the Commission on Immigration to prevent his departure. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC on 28 July 1988. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s certiorari petition on 31 January 1990 and denied reconsideration on 29 June 1990. Petitioner filed the present petition for review on 30 July 1990.

Relevant Procedural and Evidentiary Facts

The record, as found by the RTC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, shows that: (1) since the filing of the Information in October 1985 the case had not been arraigned because petitioner repeatedly failed to appear for scheduled arraignments; (2) petitioner had not personally appeared in court from filing to at least 28 July 1988; (3) the bail bond posted by petitioner had been cancelled twice and warrants of arrest were issued for his failure to appear; and (4) a Motion to Quash the Information was filed but was set for hearing only on 19 February 1988, i.e., after numerous arraignments had already been scheduled and cancelled. The RTC concluded it had afforded petitioner ample consideration and that the limit had been reached.

Issues Presented

Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ordering cancellation of petitioner’s passport and issuance of a hold-departure order, allegedly because scheduled arraignments could not proceed due to a pending Motion to Quash.
Whether, under the 1987 Constitution, the right to travel may be impaired by court order on grounds other than the enumerated interests of national security, public safety, or public health.

Court’s Findings on the Timing and Validity of Factual Basis

The Court found no reversible error in the RTC’s factual findings. The Motion to Quash was filed after numerous arraignments had been scheduled and cancelled for petitioner’s nonappearance; it was not a pending bar to those earlier settings. The concurrence of circumstances—repeated failure to appear, history of traveling abroad without permission, cancellation of bonds, and issuance of warrants—supported the RTC’s conclusion that continued allowance of petitioner’s international travel would frustrate the administration of criminal process and render judicial orders ineffective.

Constitutional and Legal Analysis on the Right to Travel and Bail

Because the decision date falls after 1987, the Court applied the 1987 Constitution. The Court analyzed Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution, noting the distinct treatment of the liberty of abode and the right to travel: the liberty of abode may be impaired by lawful court order, while the right to travel may be restricted only in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health and as may be provided by law. The Court interpreted this text to mean that administrative or executive restrictions on travel are limited to those enumerated grounds and by law; it did not, however, construe the constitutional text to curtail the inherent and necessary powers of courts to effectuate their jurisdiction in criminal proceedings.

The Court observed that the conditions imposed by bail—specifically, the obligation of an accused to make himself available whenever required by the court—operate as a valid limitation on the right to travel. It relied on the principle that bail is security conditioned upon appearance before the court (1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 114, Sections 1 and 2) and on prior precedents cited in the record (including Manotoc, Jr. v. Court of Appeals and People v. Uy Tuising) affirming that an accused admitted to bail

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 94284)

Case and Decision Metadata

Reporter citation: 273 Phil. 128; Second Division; G.R. No. 94284; Decision dated April 08, 1991.
Author of the decision: Melencio-Herrera, J.
Petition: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Relief sought: Petitioner prayed that the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 15827 dated 31 January 1990, and the Resolution of 29 June 1990 denying reconsideration, be set aside.
Disposition: Supreme Court affirmed the judgment under review; costs against petitioner, Ricardo C. Silverio.
Justices concurring: Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concurred.

Parties and Caption

Petitioner: Ricardo C. Silverio.
Respondents: The Court of Appeals; Hon. Benigno G. Gaviola (as Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch IX); and the People of the Philippines.
Case below involved Criminal Case No. CBU-6304, RTC, Cebu.

Underlying Criminal Charge and Initial Procedural Posture

Charge filed: Violation of Section 20 (4) of the Revised Securities Act.
Date of filing of Information: 14 October 1985.
Petitioner’s pretrial status: Petitioner posted bail and enjoyed provisional liberty.
Subsequent developments: Over time, petitioner failed to appear at scheduled arraignments; bail bond was cancelled twice; warrants of arrest were issued for failure to appear.

Key Orders Sought by the People and Trial Court Action

Urgent ex-parte motion by People to cancel passport and issue hold-departure order filed: 26 January 1988.
RTC order directing Department of Foreign Affairs and Commission on Immigration: Issued 4 April 1988 directing DFA to cancel petitioner’s passport or deny application therefor, and the Commission on Immigration to prevent petitioner from leaving the country.
Trial Court’s factual basis for the order: Finding that since filing of the Information (14 October 1985) petitioner had not been arraigned, had never appeared on scheduled arraignment dates, and there was evidence he had gone abroad without Court’s knowledge and permission (Rollo, p. 45).
Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC orders: Denied on 28 July 1988.

Appellate Proceedings and Timeline

Petitioner filed a Certiorari Petition before the Court of Appeals challenging the RTC orders.
Court of Appeals decision: Denied certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 15827, dated 31 January 1990.
Court of Appeals denied reconsideration: Resolution dated 29 June 1990.
Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court filed: 30 July 1990.
Supreme Court resolved to give due course and decided the case resulting in the April 08, 1991 decision.

Facts Found and Emphasized by Trial Court and Affirmed by Courts Below

Chronology emphasized by the Trial Court and conformed to by the Court of Appeals:
- Information filed on 14 October 1985.
- As of 28 July 1988, the case had not been arraigned.
- Several scheduled arraignments were cancelled and reset, mostly due to petitioner’s failures to appear.
- The reason for petitioner’s non-appearance was repeatedly that he was abroad in the United States of America.
- Petitioner had never appeared in person before the Court since the filing of the Information.
- Bond posted by petitioner had been cancelled twice; warrants of arrest had been issued against him for the same reason—failure to appear.
- Trial Court’s observation: it had given accused Silverio “more than enough consideration. The limit had long been reached” (Order, 28 July 1988, Crim. Case No. CBU-6304, RTC, Cebu, p. 5; Rollo, p. 73).

Petitioner’s Principal Contentions

Grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction by the Trial Court in issuing its orders dated 4 April 1988 and 28 July 1988, for two reasons:
- The orders were based on patently erroneous facts because scheduled arraignments could not be held due to a pending Motion to Quash the Information.
- The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the right to travel can be impaired upon lawful order of the Court on grounds other than the “interest of national security, public safety or public health,” asserting that under the 1987 Constitution such restriction is limited to those grounds.

Factual Reply to Petitioner’s First Contention (Motion to Quash Timing)

Supreme Court’s observation on timing and sequence:
- Petitioner omitted date of filing his Motion to Quash, but record shows the Motion was filed long after the Information and only after several arraignments had been scheduled and cancelled due to petitioner’s non-appearance.
- The Motion to Quash was set for hearing on 19 February 1988, which post-dated numerous scheduled arraignments that petitioner failed to attend.
- Therefore, the RTC orders were not predicated on erroneous facts; the pendency of the Motion to Quash arose only after many arraignments had been cancelled because of petitioner’s absence.

Legal and Constitutional Questions Raised (Right to Travel vs. Court’s Power)

Central legal question: Whether the right to travel may be impaired by a lawful order of the court under the 1987 Constitution, and whether such impairme