Manotoc Vs Ca

G.R. No. L-62100

May 30, 1986  

RICARDO L. MANOTOC, JR., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HONS. SERAFIN E.
CAMILON and RICARDO L. PRONOVE, JR., as Judges of the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
Pasig branches, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, the SECURITIES & EXCHANGE
COMISSION, HON. EDMUNDO M. REYES, as Commissioner of Immigration, and the Chief of
the Aviation Security Command (AVSECOM), respondents.

 FACTS : 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 the Court Acted with grave abuse of discretion

 HELD : 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. Rule 114, Section 1
of the Rules of Court defines bail as the security required and given for the release of a person
who is in the custody of the law, that he will appear before any court in which his appearance
may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance 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 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 find 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 satisfied itself that she would comply with the conditions of her bail bond.
IN RELATION TO HUMAN RIGHTS CONCEPT…

The human right highlightend in this case is the right to bail. All accused have
a Right to Bail in the Philippines before or after conviction by Metropolitan, Municipal, or
Municipal Circuit courts. The Right to Bail is also available before conviction for crimes not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.

In Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution say: “All persons, except those charged
with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be
provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.”

PERSONAL INSIGTH

bail is granted to a detente or arrestee after furnishing the required bond. Bails are
governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which also classifies the offences as
‘bailable’ and ‘non-bailable’. The grant, refusal or cancellation of bail is an exercise subject to
judicial discretion and, therefore, bail is granted only after taking into account and carefully
considering all relevant factors including the nature, circumstances and gravity of crime, the
character of the accused and whether or not it would be in the interest of justice to release the
accused on bail. An important factor that is weighed is if the accused, after his release, is likely
to influence the outcome of the case in any manner.