Scribd
Upload
26 views1 page

Silverio v. CA

The petitioner faced charges for violating securities laws and was repeatedly traveling abroad without court approval, delaying his case. The trial court issued an order cancelling his passport and denying travel to prevent further delays. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that restricting travel to ensure a defendant remains available for their case does not violate constitutional rights against arbitrary limits on travel, as it is a valid restriction in the interests of the criminal justice process proceeding without undue delay.

Uploaded by

Steve Ambalong
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
26 views1 page

Silverio v. CA

The petitioner faced charges for violating securities laws and was repeatedly traveling abroad without court approval, delaying his case. The trial court issued an order cancelling his passport and denying travel to prevent further delays. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that restricting travel to ensure a defendant remains available for their case does not violate constitutional rights against arbitrary limits on travel, as it is a valid restriction in the interests of the criminal justice process proceeding without undue delay.

Uploaded by

Steve Ambalong
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

SILVERIO v.

CA

G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991

FACTS:

➢ The petitioner faced charges for violating Section 20 (4) of the Revised Securities Act in a criminal
case filed at the Regional Trial Court of Cebu. Promptly, the petitioner posted bail to secure his
temporary release.
➢ The People of the Philippines filed an urgent motion requesting the cancellation of the
petitioner's passport and the issuance of a hold-departure order due to the petitioner's repeated
trips abroad without court approval, resulting in delays in the arraignment and scheduled
hearings.
➢ Despite opposition, an order has been issued by the RTC to the Department of Foreign Affairs
and the Commission on Immigration to cancel the petitioner's passport or deny any application
to prevent the petitioner from leaving the country.
➢ The court's decision was based on the petitioner's failure to appear in court for arraignment and
evidence suggesting unauthorized travel abroad. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration
was subsequently denied.

ISSUE:

➢ W.O.N. restrictions on the right to travel need to be arbitrary.

HELD:

➢ NO. Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the
liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court Order, the appropriate executive officers
or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. They
can impose limits only on the basis of “national security, public safety, or public health” and “as
may be provided by law1.”
➢ Holding an accused in a criminal case within the reach of the Courts by preventing his departure
from the Philippines must be considered as a valid restriction on his right to travel so that he may
be dealt with in accordance with law. The offended party in any criminal proceeding is the People
of the Philippines. It is to their best interest that criminal prosecutions should run their course
and proceed to finality without undue delay, with an accused holding himself amenable at all
times to Court Orders and processes2.

RULING:

➢ WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is hereby AFFIRMED3.

1
Silverio vs. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 760, G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991
2
Ibid., p. 761
3
Ibid., p. 766

You might also like