TITLE: GWENDOLYN F.

GARCIA vs HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, AND PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES
DATE: October 17, 2018
PONENTE: Justice Reyes Jr.
HEADING: Hold Departure Order

APPELLEE: HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

APPELLANT: GWENDOLYN F. GARCIA

FACTS:

In 1970, Luis Balili acquired 10 parcels of land in Naga, Cebu. After his death, his
nephew Romeo was authorized to sell the properties. In 2008, the Province of Cebu
purchased 11 parcels, including one untitled lot, for P434.00 per sq m. Discrepancies
emerged regarding the actual area of the property, with a significant portion found
submerged or classified as timberland.

Investigations revealed potential violations of anti-corruption laws. Criminal and

administrative charges were filed against officials, including the governor and members
of the Appraisal Committee, for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE

INFORMATION FILED: Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 and Violation of
Section 3(g) of Republic Act 3019.

NATURE OF THE CASE: PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED BY GWENDOLYN

F. GARCIA (PETITIONER) ASSAILING THE RESOLUTION DATED JANUARY 2, 2013 AND
THE THREE (3) HOLD DEPARTURE ORDERS (HDOS) DATED JULY 24, 2012 ISSUED BY
THE SANDIGANBAYAN IN CRIMINAL CASE NOS. SB-12-CRM-0175 TO 0177.

1. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari on March 11, 2013, seeking to reverse the
Sandiganbayan's Resolution and lift the HDOs.
2. Sandiganbayan denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the
Resolution dated August 26, 2011 on January 2, 2013.
3. Sandiganbayan issued an order on August 3, 2012, holding in abeyance further
proceedings and ordered the OMB to take cognizance of the motion for
reconsideration.
4. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation on July 25, 2012,
and a Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration with the OMB with
Motion for Suspension of Proceedings.
 5. Petitioner voluntarily surrendered and posted bail on July 20, 2012.
6. Sandiganbayan issued Hold Departure Orders (HDOs) against the petitioner and
co-accused on July 24, 2012.
7. Informations charging Garcia for violation of Sections 3(e) and 3(g) of R.A. 3019
and Article 220 of the RPC were filed before the Sandiganbayan on July 19,
2012.

ISSUES
ISSUE(S) ARGUMENT OF THE PETITIONERS
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in YES. The petitioner argued that there are
issuing the HDOs against the petitioner. no laws giving authority to the
 NO Sandiganbayan to issue HDOs, and that
issuance of such HDOs are breaches of
the petitioner’s constitutional right to
travel.

HELD/RATIO

ISSUANCE OF HDOs ARE PART OF THE COURTS’ INHERENT POWERS

 The court clarified that the right to travel, while fundamental, is not absolute.
The Constitution itself allows for limitations on the right to travel in the interest
of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
 The power to issue HDOs is properly subsumed under the inherent power of the
courts because it is an implement by which the jurisdiction of the court is
preserved. The issuance of an HDO complements the granting of bail, ensuring
that the accused remains within the jurisdiction of the court.
 The necessity of resorting to the inherent power to issue HDOs is evident in
cases involving high-ranking public officials and employees. The Sandiganbayan,
being a special court tasked with hearing cases against such individuals, requires
this power to hold them accountable for their actions.
 The court's issuance of A.M. No. 18-07-05-SC, pertaining to the Rule on
Precautionary Hold Departure Order, addresses the need for a process to prevent
individuals from leaving the country before a case is filed in court. This rule
acknowledges that the processes leading to the filing of a case can take time,
and the issuance of a precautionary HDO helps prevent the accused from
evading the jurisdiction of the court.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.