G.R. No. L-62100 Case Digest

G.R. No. L-62100, May 30, 1986

Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr., petitioner

vs The Court of Appeals, etc., respondents

POnente: Fernan

Facts:

Manotoc is one of the two principal stockholders of Trans-Insular Management, Inc., and Manotoc Securities, Inc., a stock brokerage house. Following the "run" on stock brokerages caused by stock broker Santamaria's flight from this jurisdiction, petitioner, who was then in the United States, came home, and together with his co-stockholders, filed a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the appointment of a management committee, not only for Manotoc Securities, Inc., but likewise for Trans-Insular Management, Inc.

On March 1, 1982, petitioner filed before each of the trial courts a motion entitled, "motion for permission to leave the country," stating as ground therefor his desire to go to the United States, "relative to his business transactions and opportunities." The prosecution opposed said motion and after due hearing, both trial judges denied the same. "The court sees no urgency."

Petitioner wrote to the Commissioner a letter requesting the recall of the RTC but was also denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the CA for denying his leave to travel abroad. CA dismisses it for lack of merit. Petitioner contends that having been admitted to bail as a matter of right, neither the courts which granted him bail nor the Securities and Exchange Commission which has no jurisdiction over his liberty, could prevent him from exercising his constitutional right to travel.

Issue: Does a person facing a criminal indictment and provisionally released on bail have an unrestricted right to travel?

Held:

A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond. Indeed, if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts.

Petitioner has not specified the duration of the proposed travel or shown that his surety has agreed to it. Petitioner merely alleges that his surety has agreed to his plans as he had posted cash indemnities. The court cannot allow the accused to leave the country without the assent of the surety because in accepting a bail bond or recognizance, the government impliedly agrees "that it will not take any proceedings with the principal that will increase the risks of the sureties or affect their remedies against him.

As petitioner has failed to satisfy the trial courts and the appellate court of the urgency of his travel, the duration thereof, as well as the consent of his surety to the proposed travel, We find no abuse of judicial discretion in their having denied petitioner's motion for permission to leave the country.