Petitioner vs. VS.: en Banc
Petitioner vs. VS.: en Banc
Petitioner vs. VS.: en Banc
SYLLABUS
DECISION
FERNAN, J : p
On the other hand, the order of Judge Pronove dated March 26, 1982, reads in
part:
"6. — Finally, there is also merit in the prosecution's contention that if the
Court would allow the accused to leave the Philippines the surety companies that
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
led the bail bonds in his behalf might claim that they could no longer be held
liable in their undertakings because it was the Court which allowed the accused to
go outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippine Court, should the accused
fail or decide not to return.
Indeed, if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without su cient
reason, he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts.
"The effect of a recognizance or bail bond, when fully executed or led of record,
and the prisoner released thereunder, is to transfer the custody of the accused from the
public o cials who have him in their charge to keepers of his own selection. Such
custody has been regarded merely as a continuation of the original imprisonment. The
sureties become invested with full authority over the person of the principal and have
the right to prevent the principal from leaving the state." 1 4
If the sureties have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the state, more
so then has the court from which the sureties merely derive such right, and whose
jurisdiction over the person of the principal remains unaffected despite the grant of bail
to the latter. In fact, this inherent right of the court is recognized by petitioner himself,
notwithstanding his allegation that he is at total liberty to leave the country, for he
would not have filed the motion for permission to leave the country in the first place, if it
were otherwise.
To support his contention, petitioner places reliance upon the then Court of
Appeals' ruling in People vs. Shepherd (C.A.-G.R. No. 23505-R, February 13, 1980)
particularly citing the following passage:
". . . The law obliges the bondsmen to produce the person of the appellants
at the pleasure of the Court. . . . The law does not limit such undertaking of the
bondsmen as demandable only when the appellants are in the territorial con nes
of the Philippines and not demandable if the appellants are out of the country.
Liberty, the most important consequence of bail, albeit provisional is indivisible. If
granted at all, liberty operates as fully within as without the boundaries of the
granting state. This principle perhaps accounts for the absence of any law or
jurisprudence expressly declaring that liberty under bail does not transcend the
territorial boundaries of the country."
Petitioner has not speci ed 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. Under this rule, the surety on a bail bond or recognizance may be
discharged by a stipulation inconsistent with the conditions thereof, which is made
without his assent. This result has been reached as to a stipulation or agreement to
postpone the trial until after the nal disposition of other cases, or to permit the
principal to leave the state or country." 1 6 Thus, although the order of March 26, 1982
issued by Judge Pronove has been rendered moot and academic by the dismissal as to
petitioner of the criminal cases pending before said judge, We see the rationale behind
said order.
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 nd no abuse of judicial discretion in their having denied
petitioner's motion for permission to leave the country, in much the same way, albeit
with contrary results, that We found no reversible error to have been committed by the
appellate court in allowing Shepherd to leave the country after it had satis ed itself that
she would comply with the conditions of her bail bond.
The constitutional right to travel being invoked by petitioner is not an absolute
right. Section 5, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution states:
"The liberty of abode and of travel shall not be impaired except upon
lawful order of the court, or when necessary in the interest of national security,
public safety or public health."
To our mind, the order of the trial court releasing petitioner on bail constitutes
such lawful order as contemplated by the above-quoted constitutional provision.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
Finding the decision of the appellate court to be in accordance with law and
jurisprudence, the Court nds that no gainful purpose will be served in discussing the
other issues raised by petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby dismissed, with costs against
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, C.J., Abad Santos, Yap, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Alampay,
Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz and Paras, JJ., concur.
Feria, J., no part.
Footnotes
1. Annex "D", Petition, p. 44, Rollo.
2. Ibid, p. 44, Rollo.
8. p. 120, Rollo.
9. Annex "BB", Motion for Leave, p. 124, Rollo.
10. p. 117, Rollo.
11. p. 121, Rollo.
12. p. 129, Rollo.