Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Willkommen bei Scribd!

  • Yapvca G.R. No. 141529 June 6, 2001

    Hochgeladen von

    Kat Jolejole
    542 Ansichten1 Seite
    The petitioner contested a condition imposed by the Court of Appeals that required him to secure certification from the mayor confirming his residence and requiring prior notice to the court if he changes residence. The petitioner argued this violated his rights to liberty of abode and travel. The Supreme Court held that while the rights to change residence and travel are protected, they can be regulated by lawful court orders. The Court of Appeals' order releasing the petitioner on bail with the contested residence certification condition was a lawful order consistent with ensuring the petitioner remains available whenever required by the Court.

    Originalbeschreibung:

    case digest of YAP v CA

    Originaltitel

    YAP v CA

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Verfügbare Formate

    DOCX, PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

    Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

    Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

    Dieses Dokument melden
    The petitioner contested a condition imposed by the Court of Appeals that required him to secure certification from the mayor confirming his residence and requiring prior notice to the court if he changes residence. The petitioner argued this violated his rights to liberty of abode and travel. The Supreme Court held that while the rights to change residence and travel are protected, they can be regulated by lawful court orders. The Court of Appeals' order releasing the petitioner on bail with the contested residence certification condition was a lawful order consistent with ensuring the petitioner remains available whenever required by the Court.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Als DOCX, PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    542 Ansichten1 Seite

    Yapvca G.R. No. 141529 June 6, 2001

    Hochgeladen von

    Kat Jolejole
    The petitioner contested a condition imposed by the Court of Appeals that required him to secure certification from the mayor confirming his residence and requiring prior notice to the court if he changes residence. The petitioner argued this violated his rights to liberty of abode and travel. The Supreme Court held that while the rights to change residence and travel are protected, they can be regulated by lawful court orders. The Court of Appeals' order releasing the petitioner on bail with the contested residence certification condition was a lawful order consistent with ensuring the petitioner remains available whenever required by the Court.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Als DOCX, PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    von 1

    YAP V CA G.R. No.

    141529 June 6, 2001 Facts: Petitioner contests the condition imposed by the CA that he secure the certification/guaranty from the mayor of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that he will remain to be a resident therein until final judgment is rendered or in case he transfers residence, it must be with prior notice to the court. Petitioner claims that it violates his liberty of abode and travel. Further he claims that the hold departure order on him is enough. Held: The right to change abode and travel within the Philippines, being invoked by petitioner, are not absolute rights. It can be regulated by lawful order. The order of the CA releasing petitioner on bail constitutes such lawful order contemplated by Section 6. The condition imposed by the CA is simply consistent with the nature and function of a bail bond, which is to ensure that petitioner will make himself available at all times whenever the Court requires his presence.

    Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen