You are on page 1of 2


30 MAY 1986]
Friday, February 06, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law
Facts: Petitioner was charged with estafa. He posted bail.
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. Petitioner thus filed a petition for certiorari and
mandamus before the then ourt of !ppeals see"ing to annul the
orders dated #arch $ and %&, '$(%, of )udges amilon and
Pronove, respectively, as well as the communication*re+uest of
the Securities and ,-change ommission, denying his leave to
travel abroad. He li"ewise prayed for the issuance of the
appropriate writ commanding the .mmigration ommissioner and
the hief of the !viation Security ommand /!0S,1#2 to clear
him for departure. The ourt of !ppeals denied the petition.
Petitioner contends that having been admitted to bail as a matter
of right, neither the courts which granted him bail nor the
Securities and ,-change ommission which has no jurisdiction
over his liberty could prevent him from e-ercising his
constitutional right to travel.
Issue: 3hether or 4ot his constitutional right to travel has been
Held: ! court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail
from leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary conse+uence of
the nature and function of a bail bond. The condition imposed
upon petitioner to ma"e himself available at all times whenever
the court re+uires his presence operates as a valid restriction on
his right to travel. .ndeed, 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 shown the
necessity for his travel abroad. There is no indication that the
business transactions cannot be underta"en by any other person
in his behalf.