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.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 72964)

Key Dates

– October 14, 1985: Information filed in RTC of Cebu, Crim. Case No. CBU-6304
– January 26, 1988: People’s ex parte motion to cancel petitioner’s passport and issue hold-departure order
– April 4, 1988: RTC order directing DFA to cancel passport and Immigration to bar departure
– July 28, 1988: Denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by RTC
– January 31, 1990: Court of Appeals denial of certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 15827)
– June 29, 1990: CA resolution denying reconsideration
– July 30, 1990: Filing of petition for review under Rule 45
– Decision based on 1987 Constitution

Applicable Law

– 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 6 (liberty of abode and travel)
– 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 114, Sections 1–2 (bail conditions)
– Rules of Court, Rule 45 (certiorari), Rule 135, Section 6 (auxiliary processes)
– Revised Securities Act, Section 20(4)

Procedural History

Petitioner was charged in October 1985 and released on bail. Repeated arraignments were postponed due to his non-appearance abroad. In January 1988 the People sought cancellation of his passport and a hold-departure order. The RTC granted relief; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The CA likewise denied his certiorari petition and motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then sought relief in this Court.

Issue 1: Alleged Erroneous Factual Basis for Travel Restriction

Petitioner argued that the RTC orders rested on patently wrong facts—specifically, that scheduled arraignments were prevented by a pending motion to quash, not by his absence. The Court found, however, that the motion to quash was filed only after multiple adjournments caused by petitioner’s failure to appear. The records uniformly showed:

  1. Since October 1985 no arraignment occurred due to petitioner’s overseas trips without court permission.
  2. Petitioner never once appeared in person for arraignment hearings.
  3. His bail bond was canceled twice and arrest warrants were issued for non-appearance.
    These circumstances justified the RTC’s findings and the travel restrictions.

Issue 2: Scope of Court-Ordered Travel Restrictions Under the 1987 Constitution

Petitioner contended that the 1987 Constitution permits impairment of the right to travel only for national security, public safety, or public health, and only by executive or administrative action. He argued courts lack authority to bar departure on other grounds. The Court rejected this view, noting:
– Article III, Section 6 distinguishes liberty of abode (impairable only by court order) from travel (impairable by law for the stated public interests).
– Courts retain inherent power to employ all processes necessary to enforce their jurisdiction in criminal cases (Rules of Court, Rule 135, Section 6).
– The condition of bail—mandating availability for court proceedings—is a long-standing valid restriction on travel (Manotoc J

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

    About Privacy Terms