G.R. No. 94284 ; April 8, 1991
RICARDO C. SILVERIO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. BENIGNO G. GAVIOLA, as Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch IX, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ricardo C. Silverio was charged with a violation of the Revised Securities Act in 1985 and posted bail for his provisional liberty. More than two years later, the prosecution filed an urgent motion to cancel his passport and issue a hold-departure order, alleging he had repeatedly traveled abroad without court permission, causing postponements of his arraignment and hearings. The Regional Trial Court granted the motion, finding that since the filing of the information, the accused had never appeared in person for his scheduled arraignment, had gone abroad without court knowledge, and had his bail bond cancelled twice with warrants of arrest issued due to his non-appearance.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing the scheduled arraignments could not proceed due to a pending Motion to Quash and that the court’s order impaired his right to travel on grounds not limited to national security, public safety, or public health as required by the Constitution. The trial court denied his motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s orders. Hence, this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders cancelling petitioner’s passport and preventing his departure from the country.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision, finding no reversible error. On the first contention, the Court found the trial court’s factual basis sound. Records convincingly showed that several arraignment settings were cancelled due to petitioner’s failure to appear because he was abroad, long before any Motion to Quash was set for hearing. His bail had been cancelled and warrants issued for his arrest due to these absences, demonstrating a pattern of avoiding court processes.
On the constitutional issue, the Court ruled that the right to travel is not absolute and can be validly restricted by a court order in a criminal proceeding. The condition of a bail bond requiring an accused to appear before the court when so ordered operates as a lawful restriction on the right to travel. This principle, established in Manotoc, Jr. v. Court of Appeals and earlier cases, remains valid under the 1987 Constitution . The constitutional provision on the right to travel does not delimit the inherent power of courts to employ all necessary means to effect their orders in pending criminal cases. When an accused violates bail conditions by failing to appear, warrants for his arrest are issued, and allowing him to leave the country would render those court processes nugatory. The state’s interest in ensuring criminal prosecutions proceed without undue delay justifies this restriction to hold an accused amenable to court authority.