3/2/23, 2:35 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 3/2/23, 2:35 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer

5 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

841 Phil. 475 particular, he cited his functions as the chairperson of a publicly-listed Philippine
corporation, Global Ferronickel Holdings, Inc. (FNI),[14] the committee Chairman for
Mining of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry,[15] and the Vice-
SECOND DIVISION Chairman of the Philippine International Chamber of Commerce.[16] He also submitted
a detailed itinerary and hotel bookings for his trip mentioning the places where he
[ G.R. No. 237703. October 03, 2018 ] would be staying.[17]

JOSEPH C. SY, PETITIONER, V. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD In a Resolution[18] dated November 21, 2017, the SB denied Motion A, explaining
DIVISION) AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS. that: (i) Sy failed to show the indispensability of his business trip; (ii) the alleged need
for the intended travel cannot outweigh the SB's inherent power to preserve the
DECISION effectiveness of its jurisdiction over his person; and (iii) business interests and ties do
not, by themselves, remove the probability of flight.[19]
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
On December 5, 2017, Sy filed another motion to travel[20] this time to Japan and
Before this Court is a petition for certiorari[1] seeking to annul the Resolutions dated
Hong Kong for the period from December 17, 2017 to January 5, 2018 (Motion B) to
November 21, 2017,[2] December 22, 2017,[3] and January 17, 2018[4] of the accompany his wife and minor son for a family vacation.[21] After hearing, the SB
Sandiganbayan (SB) in SB-17-CRM-2081 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.
denied the motion in a Resolution[22] dated December 22, 2017, stating that a
Pending the resolution of this case, petitioner Joseph C. Sy (Sy) filed a Motion for an
similar motion was previously denied and there were no new matters to substantially
Allow Departure Order[5] dated April 5, 2018, praying that he be permitted to travel
address.[23]
abroad for the period from April 23, 2018 to May 23, 2018.

The Facts On January 8, 2018, Sy filed the third motion to travel,[24] this time to Hong Kong and
China for the period from January 17 to 31, 2018 (Motion C) to attend business
On October 13, 2017, an Information[6] dated August 17, 2017 was filed before the SB meetings. During the hearing, the SB allegedly informed Sy that it conducted a
charging Sy, among others, with violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019. background search on him and doubted his intention to return to the country based on
Immediately upon learning of this development, Sy posted a cash bond amounting to an issue regarding his citizenship.[25] After the hearing, the SB denied Motion C in a
P30,000.00 for his provisional liberty, which was approved by the SB on November 7,
Resolution[26] dated January 17, 2018, stating that it has continuously denied Sy's
2017.[7] On even date, the SB issued a Hold Departure Order[8] against Sy and his co­- pleas to travel abroad and reiterating the same grounds for which it denied Motion A.
accused to prevent them from leaving the country. [27] The SB added that it remains unconvinced with Sy's assertions relative to his

On November 16, 2017, Sy filed a Motion for an Allow Departure Order[9] for the period citizenship.[28]
from November 28 to December 7, 2017 (Motion A) to embark on business trips in
On March 16, 2018, Sy filed the instant certiorari petition assailing the SB's three (3)
Hong Kong, Macau, and Xiamen, China. He stated that such travel was necessary for
Resolutions, which denied his motions to allow his foreign travels. He argued that: (a)
him to personally attend to important business matters that needed his direct and
the purposes of his travels were indispensable to his occupation as chairman of a
special attention. To secure the SB's permission, he manifested his willingness to post a
publicly-listed Philippine corporation, as well as his paternal duty to his family; (b) his
bond and to report to the SB within five (5) days upon his return from abroad. He
strong and established business interests and ties in the Philippines negate the
likewise attached a copy of his plane ticket,[10] indicating the time and place of his probability of flight; (c) his consent to a conditional arraignment effectively preserved
departure from and return to Manila, Philippines, as well as the cities he will visit. the SB's jurisdiction over his person for the duration of the case; (d) his citizenship is
confirmed by public records; and (e) the SB acted with undue interest, partiality, and
The prosecution opposed[11] the motion on these grounds: (a) it does not contain any bias when it motu proprio gathered evidence extraneous to the submission of the
itinerary of travel; (b) it does not indicate the place where Sy would stay; (c) there is parties and used its own findings as basis to question his intent to return to the
no urgency for the desired travel; (d) the probability of flight is great considering that
country.[29] Sy also invoked the Court's ruling in Cojuangco v. Sandiganbayan,[30]
his family name and middle name are Chinese; and (e) he must be amenable at all
citing several instances wherein the SB allowed the accused therein to travel for
times to the SB's jurisdiction.[12]
business purposes. Sy also submitted his travel history[31] from 2014 to 2017 to show
In reply, Sy expressed his willingness to post a bond as may be directed, stating that that the motions were not contrived for the purpose of absconding.[32]
his strong family and commercial ties will compel him to return to the Philippines.[13] In

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64732 1/12 https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64732 2/12

3/2/23, 2:35 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 3/2/23, 2:35 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

In its Comment,[33] the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) insisted that the SB aforementioned Resolutions. Thus, as the petition was filed out of time in these
acted within the scope of its jurisdiction when it denied Sy's motions for travel abroad respects, petitioner cannot validly assail these two (2) SB Resolutions.
based on reasonable and valid grounds. It also contended that, as disclosed during the
On the other hand, records show that the petition was timely filed within sixty (60)
hearing on Motion C, a complaint before the National Bureau of Investigation attacking
Sy's citizenship is still pending resolution. The OSP further argued that Sy failed to days from Sy's receipt[44] of the third SB Resolution dated January 17, 2018 which
convince the SB that he is not a flight risk, especially since he acknowledged his strong denied Motion C. However, it has been argued that the petition is already moot[45]
business connections in China and his Chinese lineage.[34] because the travel period for which Sy requested an allow departure order (i.e.,
January 17 to 31, 2018) had already lapsed. While the assertion is indeed true, the
On April 5, 2018, pending the resolution of the petition, Sy filed before the Court a Court nonetheless deems it proper to take cognizance of this case because it falls under
Motion for an Allow Departure Order[35] for the period from April 23, 2018 to May 23, certain exceptions [46] to the mootness doctrine. In particular, the issue of whether Sy
2018 to attend business meetings with Baiyin International Investment Ltd. in Hong should be issued an allow departure order is clearly capable of repetition given the
Kong and several places in China.[36] He justified the filing of the motion with this frequency of his requests for travel and the likelihood of him making similar requests in
Court by vigorously contending that the SB is "bent on the absolute deprivation of [his] the future in view of his personal and professional engagements. Moreover, the Court's
resolution in this case would also serve to guide the bar and especially the bench in
right to travel on the same basis set forth in the Assailed Resolutions."[37] He reiterated
deciding similar cases wherein they are called upon to rule on whether to issue, upon
that his business trips are indispensable to the companies he represents because
motion, an allow departure order without unduly restricting an accused's constitutional
foreign suppliers and buyers prefer to deal exclusively with him due to his experience,
right to travel. That being said, the Court proceeds to resolve the substantive issues
reputation, and acumen in business and the years he has spent developing and forging
raised in Sy's certiorari petition.
strong ties and relationships. He also stressed that his business interests and ties in the
Philippines are well-established to remove the probability of his flight and to ensure his The constitutional right to travel is part of liberty, which a citizen cannot be deprived of
presence when required by the SB.[38] without due process of law.[47] However, this right is not absolute, as it is subject to
constitutional, statutory, and inherent limitations.[48] One of the inherent limitations is
In its Comment[39] to the motion, the OSP contended that the motion is already moot
the power of courts to prohibit persons charged with a crime from leaving the country.
because the period of Sy's intended travel had already lapsed.[40] At any rate, the OSP [49] In one case, the Court held that the court's power to prohibit a person admitted to
vehemently opposed the motion on the grounds that: (a) Sy is a flight risk, which is
bail from leaving the Philippines is a necessary consequence of the nature and function
further highlighted by the uncertainty of his assertion on his citizenship; and (b) there
is no urgent necessity for the business trip; and (c) as held by the SB, the alleged need of a bail bond.[50] As a result, a person with a pending criminal case and provisionally
for the intended travel cannot outweigh the SB's inherent power to preserve and released on bail does not have an unrestricted right to travel.[51]
maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over Sy's person by making himself
available whenever it requires.[41] In People v. Uy Tuising,[52] the Court explained that an accused is prohibited from
leaving the Philippine jurisdiction "because, otherwise, [the court's] orders and
The Issues Before the Court processes would be nugatory; and inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the court from which
they issued does not extend beyond that of the Philippines, they would have no binding
The issues before the Court are whether or not: (a) the petition for certiorari assailing
force outside of said jurisdiction."[53] This situation became extant in Silverio v. Court
the SB's denial of Sy's motions for the issuance of allow departure orders should be
granted; and (b) the Motion for an Allow Departure Order dated April 5, 2018 filed of Appeals[54] wherein the accused, who was released on bail, went abroad several
before the Court should be granted. times without court approval resulting in postponements of the arraignment and
scheduled hearings. In ruling that the trial court correctly directed the Commission on
The Court's Ruling Immigration to prevent the accused from leaving the country again, the Court
pronounced thus:
I.
Petitioner x x x has posted bail but has violated the conditions thereof by
The petition for certiorari is partly granted. failing to appear before the [c]ourt when required. Warrants for his arrest
have been issued. Those orders and processes would be rendered nugatory
Procedurally, Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court states that a petition for certiorari
if an accused were to be allowed to leave or to remain, at his pleasure,
must be filed "not later than sixty (60) days from notice" of the assailed resolution. In
outside the territorial confines of the country. Holding an accused in a
this case, Sy received the first assailed Resolution on November 29, 2017[42] and the
criminal case within the reach of the [c]ourts by preventing his
second assailed Resolution on January 9, 2018[43] but filed the instant petition only on departure from the Philippines must be considered as a valid
March 16, 2018 or beyond the sixty (60)-day reglementary period to assail the restriction on his right to travel so that he may be dealt with in

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64732 3/12 https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64732 4/12

3/2/23, 2:35 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 3/2/23, 2:35 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

accordance with law. The offended party in any criminal proceeding is the state that courts should always be mindful that an accused is afforded the
People of the Philippines. It is to their best interest that criminal prosecution constitutional presumption of innocence,[63] and hence, entitled to the entire gamut of
should run their course and proceed to finality without undue delay, with an his rights, subject only to reasonable restrictions that are based on concrete facts, and
accused holding himself amenable at all times to [c]ourt [o]rders and not mere speculation.
processes.[55] (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, a perusal of Sy's travel records[64] for the period 2014 to 2017 from the
Verily, the purpose of the restriction on an accused's right to travel is to ensure that Bureau of Immigration reveals that he frequently travelled to and from the Philippines
courts can effectively exercise their jurisdiction over such person.[56] As such, courts even before the filing of the criminal case. This supports his contention that his
are authorized to issue hold departure orders against the accused in criminal cases, requested travels were not contrived for him to abscond from criminal prosecution.
and accordingly, the court's permission is required before an accused can travel abroad. Moreover, contrary to the prosecution's stance, Sy's Chinese-sounding surname and
[57] middle name do not serve to increase the probability of his flight but, at most, merely
points to his lineage. Besides, restricting Sy's right to travel based on his surname
In this case, the SB issued a hold departure order restricting Sy's right to travel abroad. would be tantamount to unduly faulting him for a status natural to his person (i.e., his
Respecting such order, he filed motions to be allowed to travel abroad for business and surname), which he did not choose for himself and for which he was not responsible for.
personal errands, but all of his motions were denied by the SB. The question now
before the Court is whether the SB gravely abused its discretion amounting to Likewise, the Court finds that the SB unduly relied on the unresolved claims against
lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied Sy's request to be allowed to Sy's citizenship before other governmental bodies[65] to justify the denial of his travel
travel abroad. request, especially considering that his birth certificate clearly indicates his Filipino
citizenship. Settled is the rule that public documents, such as birth certificates, are
Grave abuse of discretion refers to such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, as when the act amounts to an evasion of a positive prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein such as on citizenship.[66] No
duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in evidence was even presented to counter Sy's status as a Filipino citizen or show that he
is a citizen of his destination country that would enable him to have a prolonged stay
contemplation of law.[58]
therein. For these reasons, the SB should have given more weight to Sy's birth
Indeed, whether the accused should be permitted to leave the jurisdiction is a matter certificate stating that he is a Filipino citizen rather than the unresolved claims to the
contrary, which were not even presented by the prosecution before the SB.
addressed to the court's sound discretion.[59] Nevertheless, such discretion must not be
arbitrarily exercised. In deciding the matter, the court must delicately balance, Furthermore, Sy's pivotal roles as Chairman of FNI, as Committee Chairman for Mining
on the one hand, the right of the accused to the presumption of his innocence of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and Vice-Chairman of the
and the exercise of his fundamental rights, and on the other hand, the interest Philippine International Chamber of Commerce render his foreign travels necessary for
of the State to ensure that the accused will be ready to serve or suffer the
him to effectively execute his corporate duties. In Cojuangco v. Sandiganbayan,[67] the
penalty should he be eventually found liable for the crime charged.[60] Court allowed petitioner therein to travel abroad, noting that the risk of flight is
diminished by his recent reinstatement as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of San
Based on this premise, the Court finds that the SB committed grave abuse of discretion
Miguel Corporation, giving him more reason to travel to oversee the operations of the
when it denied Sy's third request to travel abroad on the grounds that he failed to
"show the indispensability of the business travel," that his "business interests and ties company abroad.[68] In this case, Sy has shown his critical function in the strategic
do not, by themselves, remove the probability of flight," and that the SB remains cooperation between FNI and China's Baiyin Nonferrous Group Co., Ltd. to improve the
unconvinced with Sy's assertions relative to his citizenship.[61] nickel value chain in the Philippines[69] and has argued that the restriction on his
business travels overseas economically threatens the companies he represent.[70]
While an accused requesting for permission to travel abroad has the burden to
show the need for his travel,[62] such permission must not be unduly withheld All these considered, there appears to be no sufficient justification for the SB's refusal
if it is sufficiently shown that allowing his travel would not deprive the court to grant Sy's motion to travel abroad. Accordingly, the instant certiorari petition should
of its exercise of jurisdiction over his person, as in this case. In making such be partly granted insofar as it timely assails the third SB Resolution, which is heretofore
assessment, courts should act judiciously, and thus, base their findings on concrete declared null and void.
variables, such as the purpose of the travel, the need for similar travels before the
II.
criminal case was instituted, the ties of the accused in the Philippines, as well as in the
destination country, the availability of extradition, the accused's reputation, his travel Meanwhile, Sy's Motion for an Allow Departure Order dated April 5, 2018 is denied as
itinerary including confirmed tickets to return to the Philippines, the possibility of the same should have been filed before the SB, which has jurisdiction over the main
reporting to the Philippine embassy in the foreign country, and other similar factors. case. It is fundamental that all ancillary incidents, such as this motion, should be
While said requests should be resolved on a case-to case basis, it may not be amiss to
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64732 5/12 https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64732 6/12
3/2/23, 2:35 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

resolved by the court handling the main case. It should be emphasized that the Court
in this case only acts as a reviewing tribunal and only for the limited purpose of
determining whether the SB gravely abused its discretion. Besides, as above-discussed,
the impetus behind restricting the right to travel is for the court to maintain its
jurisdiction over the person of the accused; undoubtedly, it is the SB who is necessarily
interested in preserving its jurisdiction over the accused.[71] Aside from this, Sy's
averred circumstances to permit him to travel pertain to questions of fact that should
be determined in the first instance by the SB.[72]

As a final point, it goes without saying that if Sy subsequently requests for permission
to travel, the SB should be guided by the considerations discussed in this Decision.
Notably, should there remain doubts on whether he would abscond, the SB is not
precluded from imposing travel restrictions to ensure his return, such as the
deposit of a travel bond, submission of a detailed and confirmed flight and travel
itinerary, specification of a limited area and duration of travel, appearance before a
Philippine consul upon arrival in the destination country, designation of a personal
agent with authority to act in his behalf, as well as personal appearance or written
advice to the court upon his return to the Philippines,[73] or, ultimately, if the doubts
are serious enough, the SB may opt not to allow him to travel based on the standards
set herein. After all, while the right to travel is indeed a constitutional right, it
nevertheless remains subject to reasonable restrictions that on the other end, further
the State's compelling interest in criminal prosecution.

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves as follows:

1) The petition for certiorari is PARTLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the

Resolution dated January 17, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan in SB-
17-CRM-2081 is NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.
   
2) The Motion for an Allow Departure Order dated April 5, 2018 is
DENIED for being improperly filed before the Court and not to
the Sandiganbayan as discussed in this Decision.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., and J. Reyes, Jr.,[*] JJ., concur.

Caguioa, J., on leave.

[*] Designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018.

[1] Dated March 15, 2018. Rollo, pp. 3-37.

[2] See Minute Resolution dated November 21, 2017; id. at 43.

[3] See Minute Resolution dated December 22, 2017; id. at 44.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64732 7/12