Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-62100 May 30, 1986 RICARDO L.

MANOTOC, JR., petitioner, vs. THE COURT O APPEALS, HONS. SERA IN E. CAMILON a!" RICARDO L. PRONO#E, JR., a$ J%"&'$ o( )*' Co%+) o( ,+$) I!$)a!-' o( R,.a/, Pa$,& 0+a!-*'$, THE PEOPLE O THE PHILIPPINES, )*' SECURITIES 1 E2CHANGE COMISSION, HON. EDMUNDO M. RE3ES, a$ Co44,$$,o!'+ o( I44,&+a),o!, a!" )*' C*,'( o( )*' A5,a),o! S'-%+,)y Co44a!" 6A#SECOM7, respondents. ERNAN, J.: The issue posed for resolution in this petition for review ma be stated thus! "oes a person facin# a criminal indictment and provisionall released on bail have an unrestricted ri#ht to travel$ Petitioner Ricardo %. Manotoc, &r., is one of the two principal stoc'holders of Trans()nsular Mana#ement, )nc. and the Manotoc *ecurities, )nc., a stoc' bro'era#e house. +avin# transferred the mana#ement of the latter into the hands of professional men, he holds no officer(position in said business, but acts as president of the former corporation. ,ollowin# the -run- on stoc' bro'era#es caused b stoc' bro'er *antamaria.s fli#ht from this /urisdiction, petitioner, who was then in the 0nited *tates, came home, and to#ether with his co( stoc'holders, filed a petition with the *ecurities and E1chan#e Commission for the appointment of a mana#ement committee, not onl for Manotoc *ecurities, )nc., but li'ewise for Trans()nsular Mana#ement, )nc. The petition relative to the Manotoc *ecurities, )nc., doc'eted as *EC Case No. 223456, entitled, -)n the Matter of the Appointment of a Mana#ement Committee for Manotoc *ecurities, )nc., Teodoro 7alaw, &r., Ricardo Manotoc, &r., Petitioners-, was #ranted and a mana#ement committee was or#ani8ed and appointed. Pendin# disposition of *EC Case No. 223456, the *ecurities and E1chan#e Commission re9uested the then Commissioner of )mmi#ration, Edmundo Re es, not to clear petitioner for departure and a memorandum to this effect was issued b the Commissioner on ,ebruar :, 3;42 to the Chief of the )mmi#ration Re#ulation "ivision. <hen a Torrens title submitted to and accepted b Manotoc *ecurities, )nc. was suspected to be a fa'e, si1 of its clients filed si1 separate criminal complaints a#ainst petitioner and one Raul %everi8a, &r., as president and vice(president, respectivel , of Manotoc *ecurities, )nc. )n due course, correspondin# criminal char#es for estafa were filed b the investi#atin# fiscal before the then Court of ,irst )nstance of Ri8al, doc'eted as Criminal Cases Nos. :=>;; and :=:22, assi#ned to respondent &ud#e Camilon, and Criminal Cases Nos. :==:5 to :==:=, raffled off to &ud#e Pronove. )n all cases, petitioner has been admitted to bail in the total amount of P32=,222.22, with ,?0 )nstance Corporation as suret .
@n March 3, 3;45, petitioner filed before each of the trial courts a motion entitled, -motion for permission to leave the countr ,- statin# as #round therefor his desire to #o to the 0nited *tates, -relative to his business transactions and opportunities.- 1 The prosecution opposed said motion and after due hearin#, both trial /ud#es denied the same. The order of &ud#e Camilon dated March ;, 3;45, reads!

Accused Ricardo Manotoc &r. desires to leave for the 0nited *tates on the all embracin# #round that his trip is ... relative to his business transactions and opportunities. The Court sees no ur#enc from this statement. No matter of an discerned to warrant /udicial imprimatur on the proposed trip.
terminated .

ma#nitude is

)n view thereof, permission to leave the countr is denied Ricardo Manotoc, &r. now or in the future until these two A5B cases are

@n the other hand, the order of &ud#e Pronove dated March 56, 3;45, reads in part! 6.(,inall , there is also merit in the prosecution.s contention that if the Court would allow the accused to leave the Philippines the suret companies that filed the bail bonds in his behalf mi#ht claim that the could no lon#er be held liable in their underta'in#s because it was the Court which allowed the accused to #o outside the territorial /urisdiction of the

Philippine Court, should the accused fail or decide not to return.

<+ERE,@RE, the motion of the accused is "EN)E".

)t appears that petitioner li'ewise wrote the )mmi#ration Commissioner a letter re9uestin# the recall or withdrawal of the latter.s memorandum dated ,ebruar :, 3;42, but said re9uest was also denied in a letter dated Ma 5C, 3;45.
Petitioner thus filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the then Court of Appeals 8 see'in# to annul the orders dated March ; and 56, 3;45, of &ud#es Camilon and Pronove, respectivel , as well as the communication(re9uest of the *ecurities and E1chan#e Commission, den in# his leave to travel abroad. +e li'ewise pra ed for the issuance of the appropriate writ commandin# the )mmi#ration Commissioner and the Chief of the Aviation *ecurit Command AAD*EC@MB to clear him for departure. @n @ctober =, 3;45, the appellate court rendered a decision 9 dismissin# the petition for lac' of merit. "issatisfied with the appellate court.s rulin#, petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari. Pendin# resolution of the petition to which we #ave due course on April 3:, 3;4> 6 petitioner filed on Au#ust 3=, 3;4: a motion for leave to #o abroad pendente lite. : )n his motion, petitioner stated that his presence in %ouisiana, 0.*.A. is needed in connection -with the obtention of forei#n investment in Manotoc *ecurities, )nc.- 8 +e attached the letter dated Au#ust ;, 3;4: of the chief e1ecutive officer of the E1ploration Compan of %ouisiana, )nc., Mr. Marsden <. Miller 9 re9uestin# his presence in the 0nited *tates to -meet the people and companies who would be involved in its investments.- Petitioner, li'ewise manifested that on Au#ust 3, 3;4:, Criminal Cases Nos. :;>> to :;>6 of the Re#ional Trial Court of Ma'ati Aformerl Nos. :==:5(:==:=B had been dismissed as to him -on motion of the prosecution on the #round that after verification of the records of the *ecurities and E1chan#e Commission ... AheB was not in an wa connected with the Manotoc *ecurities, )nc. as of the date of the commission of the offenses imputed to him.- 10 Criminal Cases Nos. :=>;; and :=:22 of the Re#ional Trial Court of Ma'ati, however, remained pendin# as &ud#e Camilon, when notified of the dismissal of the other cases a#ainst petitioner, instead of dismissin# the cases before him, ordered merel the informations amended so as to delete the alle#ation that petitioner was president and to substitute that he was -controllin#Ema/orit stoc'holder,.. 11 of Manotoc *ecurities, )nc. @n *eptember 52, 3;4:, the Court in a resolution en banc denied petitioner.s motion for leave to #o abroad pendente lite. 12

Petitioner contends that havin# been admitted to bail as a matter of ri#ht, neither the courts which #ranted him bail nor the *ecurities and E1chan#e Commission which has no /urisdiction over his libert , could prevent him from e1ercisin# his constitutional ri#ht to travel. Petitioner.s contention is untenable. A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leavin# the Philippines. This is a necessar conse9uence of the nature and function of a bail bond. Rule 33:, *ection 3 of the Rules of Court defines bail as the securit re9uired and #iven for the release of a person who is in the custod of the law, that he will appear before an court in which his appearance ma be re9uired as stipulated in the bail bond or reco#ni8ance.
)ts ob/ect is to relieve the accused of imprisonment and the state of the burden of 'eepin# him, pendin# the trial, and at the same time, to put the accused as much under the power of the court as if he were in custod of the proper officer, and to secure the appearance of the accused so as to answer the call of the court and do what the law ma re9uire of him. 13

The condition imposed upon petitioner to ma'e himself available at all times whenever the court re9uires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his ri#ht to travel. As we have held in People vs. 0 Tuisin#, 63 Phil. :2: A3;>=B. ... the result of the obli#ation assumed b appellee Asuret B to hold the accused amenable at all times to the orders and processes of the lower court, was to prohibit said accused from leavin# the /urisdiction of the Philippines, because, otherwise, said orders and processes will be nu#ator , and inasmuch as the /urisdiction of the courts from which the issued does not e1tend be ond that of the Philippines the would have no bindin# force outside of said /urisdiction. )ndeed, if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason, he ma be placed be ond the reach of the courts.
The effect of a reco#ni8ance or bail bond, when full e1ecuted or filed of record, and the prisoner released thereunder, is to transfer the custod of the accused from the public officials who have him in their char#e to 'eepers of his own selection. *uch custod has been re#arded merel as a continuation of the ori#inal imprisonment. The sureties become invested with full authorit over the person of the principal and have the ri#ht to prevent the principal from leavin# the state.

18

)f the sureties have the ri#ht to prevent the principal from leavin# the state, more so then has the court from which the sureties merel derive such ri#ht, and whose /urisdiction over the person of the principal remains unaffected despite the #rant of bail to the latter. )n fact, this inherent ri#ht of the court is

reco#ni8ed b petitioner himself, notwithstandin# his alle#ation that he is at total libert to leave the countr , for he would not have filed the motion for permission to leave the countr in the first place, if it were otherwise. To support his contention, petitioner places reliance upon the then Court of Appeals. rulin# in People vs. Shepherd AC.A.(?.R. No. 5>=2=(R, ,ebruar 3>, 3;42B particularl citin# the followin# passa#e! ... The law obli#es the bondsmen to produce the person of the appellants at the pleasure of the Court. ... The law does not limit such underta'in# of the bondsmen as demandable onl when the appellants are in the territorial confines of the Philippines and not demandable if the appellants are out of the countr . %ibert , the most important conse9uence of bail, albeit provisional, is indivisible. )f #ranted at all, libert operates as full within as without the boundaries of the #rantin# state. This principle perhaps accounts for the absence of an law or /urisprudence e1pressl declarin# that libert under bail does not transcend the territorial boundaries of the countr . The faith reposed b petitioner on the above(9uoted opinion of the appellate court is misplaced. The rather broad and #enerali8ed statement suffers from a serious fallac F for while there is, indeed, neither law nor /urisprudence e1pressl declarin# that libert under bail does not transcend the territorial boundaries of the countr , it is not for the reason su##ested b the appellate court. Also, petitioner.s case is not on all fours with the *hepherd case. )n the latter case, the accused was able to show the ur#ent necessit for her travel abroad, the duration thereof and the conforme of her sureties to the proposed travel thereb satisf in# the court that she would compl with the conditions of her bail bond. in contrast, petitioner in this case has not satisfactoril shown an of the above. As aptl observed b the *olicitor ?eneral in his comment!
A perusal of petitioner.s .Motion for Permission to %eave the Countr . will show that it is solel predicated on petitioner.s wish to travel to the 0nited *tates where he will, alle#edl attend to some business transactions and search for business opportunities. ,rom the tenor and import of petitioner.s motion, no ur#ent or compellin# reason can be discerned to /ustif the #rant of /udicial imprimatur thereto. Petitioner has not sufficientl shown that there is absolute necessit for him to travel abroad. Petitioner.s motion bears no indication that the alle#ed business transactions could not be underta'en b an other person in his behalf. Neither is there an hint that petitioner.s absence from the 0nited *tates would absolutel preclude him from ta'in# advanta#e of business opportunities therein, nor is there an showin# that petitioner.s non(presence in the 0nited *tates would cause him irreparable dama#e or pre/udice. 19

Petitioner has not specified the duration of the proposed travel or shown that his suret has a#reed to it. Petitioner merel alle#es that his suret has a#reed to his plans as he had posted cash indemnities. The court cannot allow the accused to leave the countr without the assent of the suret because in acceptin# a bail bond or reco#ni8ance, the #overnment impliedl a#rees -that it will not ta'e an proceedin#s with the principal that will increase the ris's of the sureties or affect their remedies a#ainst him. 0nder this rule, the suret on a bail bond or reco#ni8ance ma be dischar#ed b a stipulation inconsistent with the conditions thereof, which is made without his assent. This result has been reached as to a stipulation or a#reement to postpone the trial until after the final disposition of other cases, or to permit the principal to leave the state or countr .- 16 Thus, althou#h the order of March 56, 3;45 issued b &ud#e Pronove has been rendered moot and academic b the dismissal as to petitioner of the criminal cases pendin# before said /ud#e, <e see the rationale behind said order.

As petitioner has failed to satisf the trial courts and the appellate court of the ur#enc of his travel, the duration thereof, as well as the consent of his suret to the proposed travel, <e find no abuse of /udicial discretion in their havin# denied petitioner.s motion for permission to leave the countr , in much the same wa , albeit with contrar results, that <e found no reversible error to have been committed b the appellate court in allowin# *hepherd to leave the countr after it had satisfied itself that she would compl with the conditions of her bail bond. The constitutional ri#ht to travel bein# invo'ed b petitioner is not an absolute ri#ht. *ection =, Article )D of the 3;C> Constitution states! The libert of abode and of travel shall not be impaired e1cept upon lawful order of the court, or when necessar in the interest of national securit , public safet or public health. To our mind, the order of the trial court releasin# petitioner on bail constitutes such lawful order as contemplated b the above(9uoted constitutional provision. ,indin# the decision of the appellate court to be in accordance with law and /urisprudence, the Court finds that no #ainful purpose will be served in discussin# the other issues raised b petitioner. <+ERE,@RE, the petition for review is hereb dismissed, with costs a#ainst petitioner. *@ @R"ERE".

Teehankee, C.J., Abad Santos, Yap, Narvasa, Melencio- errera, Alampa!, "#tierre$, Jr., Cr#$ and Paras, JJ., conc#r. %eria, J., took no part.
oo)!o)'$

3 Anne1 -"-, Petition, p. ::, Rollo. 5 &bid, p. ::, Rollo. > &bid, p. ::, Rollo. : Anne1 -A Petition, p. 3C, Rollo = Anne1 -"-, Petition, p. :5, Rollo. 6 p. 4C, Rollo. C p. 33C, Rollo. 4 p. 352, Rollo. ; Anne1 -BB-, Motion for %eave p. 35:, Rollo. 32 p. 33C, Rollo. 33 p. 353, Rollo. 35 p. 35;, Rollo. 3> 6 Am. &ur. GRev. Ed.H, Bailment, *6 3: 6 Am. &ur. GRev. Ed.H, Bailments, I322, 3= Comment, pp. 6;(C2, Rollo. 36 6 Am. &ur. 35=.