MANOTOC JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS Ponente: Fernan, J.

Date: May 30, 1986 RATIO DECIDENDI: A person charged with a crime and free under bail may be denied the liberty to travel abroad by a lawful order of the court. QUICK FACTS: President of a securities company accepts seemingly fake Torrens title and is charged with two cases of estafa. On bail, he requests to be allowed to leave the country on business, but is denied by the two CFI judges, the SEC and the Court of Appeals, hence the instant petition. FACTS: Name of Accused: Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr. (petitioner) Name of victim (if any): estafa cases: N/A; petition for certiorari: Court of Appeals, Judge Serafin Camilon and Judge Ricardo Pronove Jr. (CFI Rizal, Pasig), People of the Phils., Securities and Exchange Commission, Hon. Edmundo Reyes (Commissioner on Immigration), and Chief of the Aviation Security Command (AVSECOM) - Ricardo Manotoc Jr. was part of the organization and appointment of a management committee of Trans-Insular Management, Inc. and the Manotoc Securities, Inc.. This was done through a petition filed with the SEC. Pending this petition, the SEC requested the Commissioner of Immigration not to clear petitioner for departure. This request was granted. - Several cases of estafa was filed against Manotoc and a Raul Leveriza when a Torrens title was submitted to and accepted by Manotoc Securities, Inc.. These cases were filed by its clients. Manotoc was charged and was released on bail for all the cases, with FGU Insurance Corporation as surety. - Manotoc subsequently filed a motion entitled, "motion for permission to leave the country," citing business reasons for wanting to go abroad. This request was denied by both courts where the cases had been filed. - Manotoc likewise wrote the Immigration Commissioner a letter requesting the recall or withdrawal of the hold departure order earlier issued in relation to the SEC petition. This was also denied.

- Upon petition for certiorari and mandamus filed with the Court of Appeals, the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Hence this petition for review on certiorari. ISSUE: WON a person facing a criminal indictment and provisionally released on bail have an unrestricted right to travel DECISION: SC denied Manotocs petition 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. This in itself operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel. Court also reasoned that the payment of a bond and the release of the accused based on this is only a continuation of the original imprisonment, albeit under the charge of keepers of the choosing of the accused. If these keepers (sureties; in this case FGU Insurance Corp.) have the right to prevent the accused from leaving the country, then all the more the courts have the authority to do the same. Manotoc cited a Court of Appeals decision (People vs. Shepherd, C.A.G.R. No. 23505-R, February 13, 1980) as basis, but the court observed that in the Shepherd case, there was a sufficient and urgent necessity for the accused to leave the country. Manotoc had failed to show that his travel was urgent and necessary, as it was merely a business trip with no definite timetable. Finally, the Court also pointed out that the Constitutional provision clearly states: The liberty of abode and of travel shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court, or when necessary in the interest of national security, public safety or public health. (Section 5, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution)