Manotoc v CA; G.R. No. L-62100; 30 May 1986; 142 SCRA 149

FACTS:
Petitioner was charged for estafa in connection with a suspected fake Torrens title submitted to and accepted by his stock brokerage house. He has been admitted to bail. He filed before each court a motion seeking permission to leave the country to attend to matters “relative to his business transactions and opportunities” in the United States. The motions were denied.

ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the denial of his petition violates petitioner’s right to travel.

RULING:
NO. 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. The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel. If the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts. The constitutional right to travel being invoked by petitioner is not an absolute right. The order of the trial court releasing petitioner on bail constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by Art. IV, Sec. 5 of the 1973 Constitution.

Tags: , ,

Category: Legal Chyme

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *