Manotoc vs. CA (May 30, 1986)

Manotoc vs. CA | May 30, 1986

FACTS:

Ricardo Manotoc Jr. was one of the two principal stockholders of Trans-Insular Management Inc. and the Manotoc Securities Inc. (stock brokerage house).  He was in US for a certain time, went home to file a petition with SEC for appointment of a management committee for both businesses.  Such was granted.  However, pending disposition of a case filed with SEC, the latter requested the Commissioner of Immigration not to clear him for departure.  Consequently, a memorandum to this effect was issued.

There was a torrens title submitted to and accepted by Manotoc Securities Inc which was suspected to be fake.  6 of its clients filed separate criminal complaints against the petitioner and Leveriza, President and VP respectively.  He was charged with estafa and was allowed by the Court to post bail.

Petitioner filed before each trial court motion for permission to leave the country stating his desire to go to US relative to his business transactions and opportunities.  Such was opposed by the prosecution and was also denied by the judges.  He filed petition for certiorari with CA seeking to annul the prior orders and the SEC communication request denying his leave to travel abroad.

According to the petitioner, having been admitted to bail as a matter of right, neither the courts that granted him bail nor SEC, which has no jurisdiction over his liberty, could prevent him from exercising his constitutional right to travel.

ISSUE: WON petitioner’s constitutional right to travel was violated.

HELD: NO. 

The court has power to prohibit person admitted to bail from leaving the country because 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 constitutional right to travel.  In case he will be allowed to leave the country without sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the reach of courts. 

Furthermore, petitioner failed to satisfy trial court and CA of the urgency of his travel, duration thereof, as well as consent of his surety to the proposed travel.  He was not able to show the necessity of his travel abroad.  He never indicated that no other person in his behalf could undertake such business transaction.

Article 3 Sec6: “The liberty of abode and of changing the same… shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court….”  According to SC, the order of trial court in releasing petitioner on bail constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by the provision on right to travel.

Flores Vs. People (December 10, 1974)

Flores vs. People

GR L-25769 | December 10, 1974

FACTS:

Petitioners, Francisco Flores and Francisco Angel, were accused for robbery.  Information was filed in December 1951.  They were found guilty of the crime charged in November 1955.   Notice of appeal was file in December 1955.  It was until February 1958 that action was taken by CA—a resolution remanding the records of the case to the lower court for a rehearing of the testimony of a certain witness deemed material for the disposition of the case.  Such resolution was amended dated August 1959 which granted the petitioners to set aside the decision so that evidence for the defense on new facts may be received and a new decision in lieu of the old one may be rendered.  The case was returned to the lower court but nothing was done for about a year because the offended party failed to appear despite the 6/7 dates set for such hearing.  Furthermore, when the offended party took the witness stand, his testimony was characterized as a mere fiasco as he could no longer remember the details of the alleged crime and even failed to identify the 2 accused.

The trial court instead of rendering a decision sent back the records to the appellate tribunal.  5 more years elapsed without anything being done, petitioners sought dismissal of the case against them due to inordinate delay in the disposition (from December 1955- May 1965).  CA was unresponsive notwithstanding the vigorous plea of the petitioners, its last order being a denial of a second MR dated January 1966.  CA’s defense is that the case was not properly captioned as “People of the Philippines” and without “Court of Appeals” being made a party to the petition. 

ISSUE:  WON constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated.

HELD: YES.  Petition for certiorari was granted.  Orders denying Motion to dismiss as Motion to Reconsideration are set aside and nullified.   Criminal Case against petitioners was dismissed.

Constitutional right to a speedy trial means one free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays.  An accused is entitled to a trial at the earliest opportunity.  He cannot be oppressed by delaying the commencement of the trial for an unreasonable length of time.  The Constitution does not say that such right may be availed only where the prosecution of a crime is commenced and undertaken by the fiscal.  It does not exclude from its operation cases commenced by private individuals.  “Where a person is prosecuted criminally, he is entitled to a speedy trial, irrespective of the nature of the offense or the manner in which it is authorized to be commenced”. 

Technicalities should give way to the realities of the situation.  There should not be too much significance attached to the procedural defect (refer to CA’s defense).  CA failed to accord respect to this particular constitutional right amounting at the very least to a grave abuse of discretion.