apprised of his change of residence during the

LIBERTY OF pendency of the appeal.

ABODE AND ISSUE

TRAVEL WON the conditions imposed by the CA that Yap
Yap vs CA
secures "a certification/guaranty from the Mayor
of the place of his residence that he is a resident
G.R. No. 141529, June 6 2001
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
FACTS
prior notice to the court", violates his liberty of
abode and travel protected under the
For misappropriating amounts equivalent to
constitution.
P5,500,000.00, Yap was convicted of estafa by
the RTC of Pasig City. He moved to be allowed
RULING
provisional liberty under the cash bond he had
filed. The trial court denied the motion.
Under the circumstances of this case, the
Supreme Court found that appropriate
After the records of the case were transmitted to
conditions had been imposed in the bail bond to
the CA, Yap filed with the said court a Motion to
ensure against the risk of flight, particularly, the
Fix Bail for the Provisional Liberty Pending
combination of the hold-departure order and the
Appeal. The CA granted the motion and he was
requirement that petitioner inform the court of
allowed to post bail in the amount of 5.5 Million
any change of residence and of his whereabouts.
Pesos, in addition to subjecting himself to secure
"a certification/guaranty from the Mayor of the
Moreover, the right to change abode and travel
place of his residence that he is a resident of the
within the Philippines, being invoked by Yap, are
area and that he will remain to be so until final
not absolute rights.
judgment is rendered or in case he transfers
residence, it must be with prior notice to the
Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
court and private complainant." The CA also
states:
required the confiscation of Yap’s passport and
the issuance of a hold-departure order, after
The liberty of abode and of changing the
having been established that he was in
same within the limits prescribed by law
possession of a valid passport and visa and had
shall not be impaired except upon lawful
in fact left the country several times during the
order of the court. Neither shall the right to
course of the proceedings in the lower court.
travel be impaired except in the interest of
national security, public safety, or public
Yap now contests the condition imposed by the
health, as may be provided by law.
CA that he secure "a certification/guaranty from
the Mayor of the place of his residence that he is
The order of the CA releasing Yap on bail
a resident of the area and that he will remain to
constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by
be a resident therein until final judgment is
the above provision. The condition imposed by
rendered or in case he transfers residence, it
the CA is simply consistent with the nature and
must be with prior notice to the court", claiming
function of a bail bond, which is to ensure that he
that it violates his liberty of abode and travel.
will make himself available at all times whenever
the Court requires his presence. A closer look at
The Solicitor General advanced that all that the
the questioned condition will show that Yap is
CA requires of Yap is notice in case of change of
not prevented from changing abode; he is merely
address and it does not in any way impair his
required to inform the court in case he does so.
right to change abode for as long as the court is
 dismissing the criminal case for Rebellion for
lack of probable cause.
Reyes vs CA

G.R. No. 182161, December 3, 2009 ISSUE

FACTS WON the HDO No. 45 issued by the DOJ Secretary

Reyes was among those arrested in the Manila
Peninsula Hotel siege on November 30, 2007.
Upon the request of the DILG, DOJ Secretary Raul
Gonzales issued Hold Departure Order (HDO)
No. 45 ordering Commissioner of Immigration to
include in the Hold Departure List of the Bureau
of Immigration and Deportation (BID) the name
of Reyes and 49 others relative to the
aforementioned case in the interest of national
security and public safety. TSEA
After finding probable cause, the DOJ filed an
information before the RTC. However, the RTC
issued an Order dismissing the charge for
Rebellion against Reyes and 17 others for lack of
probable cause. Reyes's counsel Atty. Chavez
later on wrote the DOJ Secretary requesting the
lifting of HDO No. 45 in view of the dismissal of
criminal case against Reyes.
Reyes filed an instant petition with the CA
claiming that despite the dismissal of the
rebellion case against him, HDO No. 45 still
subsists and that every time he would fly back
and from Philippines and presents himself at the
NAIA for his flights abroad, he stands to be
detained and interrogated by the BID officers
because of the continued inclusion of his name in
the Hold Departure List. He contends that the
continued restraint on his right to travel is
against his constitutional rights.
against Reyes violates his constitutional right to
travel despite the dismissal of the Rebellion case
against him in the lower court.
RULING
According to the Supreme Court, the right to
travel refers to the right to move from one place
to another. As the Court ruled in Marcos v.
Sandiganbayan, ". . . a person's right to travel is
subject to the usual constraints imposed by the
very necessity of safeguarding the system of
justice. In such cases, whether the accused
should be permitted to leave the jurisdiction for
humanitarian reasons is a matter of the court's
sound discretion."
Here, the restriction on Reyes's right to travel as
a consequence of the pendency of the criminal
case filed against him was not unlawful. Reyes
has also failed to establish that his right to travel
was impaired in the manner and to the extent
that it amounted to a serious violation of his
right to life, liberty and security, for which there
exists no readily available legal recourse or
remedy like the writ of amparo.

The OSG maintained that the Secretary of the

DOJ's power to issue HDO springs from its
mandate under the Administrative Code to
investigate and prosecute offenders as the
principal law agency of the government and that
the lifting of HDO No. 45 is premature in view of
public respondent's (DOJ Panel of Prosecutors)
pending Motion for Reconsideration filed by the
respondents (DOJ) of the Order of the RTC