Marcos vs.

Sandiganbayan
247 SCRA 127
August 9, 1995
Petitioner:
Imelda R. Marcos
Respondent: Sandiganbayan (First Division) and the People of the
Philippines
Case:
Petition for certiorari to review the judgment resolutions of the
First Division of the Sandiganbayan.
Facts:
Former First Lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos is the defendant in several
criminal cases for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
(RA 3019), now pending in the Sandiganbayan and in the regular
courts.
In two of these cases, she was found guilty by the First Division of the
Sandiganbayan and was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 9-12
years, with perpetual disqualification from office. A motion for
reconsideration is pending.
December 24, 1993 - After her conviction, she filed a Motion for
Leave to Travel Abroad to seek diagnostic tests and
treatment in China because of a serious and life-threatening
medical condition requiring facilities not available in the
Philippines. This was denied cause of failure to give notice to the
prosecution and the time asked was too short for the court to inform
itself of the basis of the motion.
December 29, 1993 Marcos filed in another case an Urgent Ex-Parte
Motion for Permission to Travel Abroad to undergo diagnosis and
treatment in China. This motion was supported by medical reports
conducted by her physician and cardiologist, Dr. Roberto V. Anastacio
and other doctors from Makati Medical Center.
January 4, 1994 She filed in another case a Motion for Leave to
Travel Abroad to place including the United States and Europe, if
necessary, for treatment of hypertensive heart diseases,
uncontrolled angina pectoris and anterior myocardial infarction.
Alleged that these tests are not available locally.
The Chairman of Sandiganbayans First Division, Presiding Justice
Francis E. Garchitorena wrote a letter to Dr. Gregorio B. Patacsil,
Officer-in-Charge of the Philippine Heart Center asking for an

expert opinion on coronary medicine. The questions asked were

the following:
o Is petitioners condition life-threatening?
o What are the sophisticated biochemical tests necessary (not
merely desirable, in any are needed at all, to ascertain and
remedy her condition?
o Are these tests available here?
o Is the present level of expertise in the Philippines adequate to
respond to her condition?
The Presidential Commission on Good Government filed a manifestion
interposing no objection based on humanitarian reasons, as long as
petitioner complies with the terms and conditions for the travel.
The Office of the Special Prosecutor opposed the motionssince
necessaity to go abroad was not demonstrated and that her conviction
in two previous criminal cases may motivate her not to return.
January 7, 1994 Hearing on the motion. Petitioners counsel asked the
court to add a further question to be sent to Dr. Patacsil. (Without the
Biochemical test, may proper treatment be administered to Mrs.
Marcos?). They also included the list of medicines being taken by
petitioner as part of the study.
January 17, 1994 another Supplement to the Motion for Leave
Abroad was filed together with letters and endorsement from various
doctors and hospitals from the United States and China.
January 20, 1994 The Sandiganbayan received the report from
the Philippine Heart Center done by a committee of
cardiologists led by Dr. Abarquez. This contained findings
which were contrary to the conclusions of petitioners
physicians.
February 18, 1994 The court denied the petitioners motions.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and a Motion to Admit
Clinical Summary and to Resolve Motion for Reconsideration. The
clinical summary was a recent medical report conducted at the
Philippine Heart Center.
Petitioner also filed a Motion to Admit Recognizance in Support of, and
to Resolve Soonest, the Motion for Reconsideration to Travel Abroad.
Attached to this were letter from Vice President Joseph Estrada offering
to be guarantor for the return of petitioner and letters from 24
congressmen (including Speaker Jose de Venecia) requesting the court
to allow petitioner to travel abroad.

 April 19, 1994 Respondent Court denied petitioners motion for

reconsideration for lack of merit. It also expressed disapproval of the
interventions of the Vice President and the congressmen.
Hence this petition. Petitioners claim the following:
o The Sandiganbayan arbitrarily disregarded the testimonies and
medical findings of Imeldas attending physicians and merely
substituted them with the academic views of the committee from
the Philippine Heart Center, who never examined the victim
personally.
o It adopted an unusual and unorthodox conduct of trial since it
contacted a third part asking for an opinion on petitioners
motion and medical findings and that this evidence was not
presented by the petitioner.
o It failed to resolve that, in the clash between basic
constitutional rights of the petitioner and the authority of
the court over the petitioner, the basic constitutional
rights must prevail.
o It considered the conviction of petitioner in two criminal cases
which are pending reconsideration as factors in denying her
rights.
o The perception that there is no imperative necessity for
petitioner to avail of medical treatment abroad cannot constitute
a cause to deny or deprive petitioner of her constitutional rights.
Issue:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion
in denying petitioners request to travel abroad for medical treatment.
NO!!!
Ratio:
Regarding Expert Opinions / Amici-Curiae
o Respondent court had to seek expert opinion because
petitioner's motion was based on the advice of her physician.
The court could not be expected to just accept the opinion of
petitioner's physician in resolving her request for permission to
travel.
o The subject lay beyond the competence of the court, and
hence, it only followed the prudent course available of
seeking the opinion of specialists in that field.
o Indeed, when even in their own field of expertise (law) courts are
allowed to invite amici curiae to shed light on recondite points of

law, there is no reason for denying them assistance on other

subjects
o Presiding Justice Garchitorena's letter to Dr. Patacsil is notable in
this regard for its sedulous concern for "greater need for
information and expert advise" to the end that respondent court
may be able to determine "whether or not it is necessary and
urgent for petitioner to travel abroad.
o What would be objectionable would be if respondent court
obtained information without disclosing its source to the parties
and used it in deciding a case against them. Then the parties
could justifiably complain that their right to due process has
been violated. But, in this case, everything was on the level, with
the parties taking part in the proceedings of the court.
o Also, petitioner is estoped from questioning what she
now calls the "unusual and unorthodox" manner of
resolving her request for permission to travel abroad
since her counsel even submitted additional questions
and later on cross-examined the leader of the committee
(Dr. Abarquez)
The Sandiganbayan disregarded the findings and
recommendations of petitioners own physicians because
petitioner failed to prove the necessity for a trip abroad.
considering the fact that she is facing charges before the courts in
several cases, in two of which she was convicted although the decision
is still pending reconsideration, petitioner did not have an absolute
right to leave the country and the burden was on her to prove that
because of danger to health if not to her life there was necessity to
seek medical treatment in foreign countries
it was unnecessary for the Philippine Heart Center's specialists to
examine the petitioner personally. Given the findings of petitioner's
own physicians, they found that petitioner had not been shown to be
suffering from coronary artery disease and uncontrolled high blood
pressure (labile hypertension).
Relevant portions of the Dr. Abarquez and The Committes findings:
o The diagnosis of hypertensive heart disease is questionable.
o The committee questioned the need for petitioner to have
biochemical tests abroad. Even without these tests, it noted, Dr.
Anastacio had "already been treating her with medicines that are
used for hypertension and coronary heart disease."

o With respect to Dr. Anastacio's claim that petitioner is in the high

risk group of sudden cardiac death, the committee stated that a
history of sudden death in the family alone will not support such
a conclusion
o The tests we have recommended are available in the
Philippines. Proper treatment can be given to Mrs. Marcos even
in the absence of the suggested biochemical tests.
o The present facilities and expertise in the Philippines are
more than adequate to diagnose and treat patients with
hypertension and/or coronary heart disease.
The evidence submitted to it, according to the Abarquez committee,
"[did] not confirm the allegation that Mrs. Marcos is in the high risk
group of sudden cardiac death." Perhaps the best proof that she
is not in the group is the fact that she ran in the last election
for a seat in the House of Representative and won. It may be
assumed that she waged an arduous political campaign but apparently
is none the worse for it.
Despite the fact that Imelda was given permission to travel on three
previous occasions before, her later conviction in two cases
dictated the need for greater caution.
Indeed, conviction is not yet final due to the motion for
reconsideration. But a person's right to travel is subject to the
usual contraints imposed by the very necessity of safeguarding
the system of justice. In such cases, whether the accused
should be permitted to leave the jurisdiction for humanitarian
reason is a matter of the court's sound discretion.
The active intervention of the Presiding Judge is justified by the fact
that the subject with which the court was dealing was a highly
technical one and he wanted to clarify for himself a number of medical
question.
The Courts Suggestion
o Petitioner should have requested an examination of her medical
condition by a joint team of cardiologist and other medical
experts instead of having the findings of her physician reviewed
by the other specialists. A joint investigation will have the
advantage of not being unduly adversarial since the purpose is
the common objective of arriving at a consensus among the
experts.
o It is not yet late for the petitioner to ask for this. She can
file another motion before the Sandiganbayan. This is

suggested because during the pendency of this action,

petitioner filed a motion for leave to travel, this time on
the ground that she is suffering from a difficult type of
glaucoma which threatens to make her blind.
o This is supported by a medical certificate of Dr. Manuel B. Agulto,
opthalmologist and glaucoma expert, who recommends that
petitioner see Dr. Richard J. Simmons of Boston, Massachusetts,
and avail herself of his "internationally renowned expertise and
recognized authority in this particularly difficult glaucoma type."
o This motion should be addressed to the Sandiganbayan not only
because whether petitioner should be allowed to leave the
country is its primary concern but also because the
determination of petitioner's eye condition is question of fact to
be made in the first instance by the Sandiganbayan.

Held:The petitioner is DISMISSED without prejudice to the filling of another

motion for leave to travel abroad, should petitioner still desire, based
on her heart condition. In such an event the determination of her
medical condition should be made by joint panel of medical specialists
recommended by both the accused and the prosecution.
Petitioner's motion for leave to travel for medical treatment of her
alleged failing eyesight is hereby REFERRED to the Sandiganbayan
with directive to the latter to appoint a joint panel of eye specialists as
outlined above.

Memory Aid / Crammer-Friendly Version:

Former First Lady Imelda Marcos is charged with several cases of graft
and corruption lodged with the Sandiganbayan and other lower courts.
She was already convicted in two of these cases.
She filed several petitions asking the court to allow her to leave the
country to seek medical treatment abroad, primarily because of heart
problems. She alleged that the proper treatments are not available in
the Philippines.
The First Division of the Sandiganbayan, through its Presiding Justice
Francis Garchitorena wrote a letter to the Philippine Heart Center to
ask for an expert opinion on the matter.

The eventual reply by the team of cardiologists from the Philippine

Heart Center is that the diagnoses conducted by Imeldas personal
doctors are questionable. Her sickness could not be proved outright.
Also, it said that the tests can be conducted in the Philippines and that
there are more than adequate facilities available locally.
Hence, the Sandiganbayan denied the motions. The motion for
reconsideration was also not granted.
Petitioner alleges that the Sandiganbayan committed GADALEJ in not
allowing her to travel because it is an attack against the right to travel
of Mrs. Marcos. Also, she questions the act of the Sandiganbayan in
giving more weight to the report conducted by the team of
cardiologists than her own physician.
SC ruled in favour of Sandiganbayan. It upheld the expert opinions
given by the medical practitioners since the subject is beyond the
competence of the court.
A person's right to travel is subject to the usual constraints imposed by
the very necessity of safeguarding the system of justice. In such cases,
whether the accused should be permitted to leave the jurisdiction for
humanitarian reason is a matter of the court's sound discretion.