ADVERTISEMENT
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 219300. April 18, 2018.]
ROMUALDO BAWASANTA, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
[G.R. No. 219323. April 18, 2018.]
RODOLFO G. VALENCIA, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
[G.R. No. 219343. April 18, 2018.]
ALONSO V. UMALI, JR., petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 18, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC
G.R. No. 219300 — ROMUALDO BAWASANTA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 219323 — RODOLFO G. VALENCIA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 219343 — ALONSO V. UMALI, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
On March 28, 2018, petitioner Rodolfo G. Valencia (Valencia) filed a Motion for Leave to Travel Abroad seeking the Court's authorization for him to travel abroad with his family and Architect Manuel Max Noche (Arch. Noche) to Europe in the period from May 7, 2018 to May 26, 2018, particularly to visit the Church of the Holy Child of Prague (Santo Niño de Praga) located in the City of Prague in the Czech Republic. He averred that he and Arch. Noche desired to see for themselves and examine the structure of the church of Santo Niño de Praga to enable them to pattern after said church, the church they were presently constructing in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro; and that he and his family would spend the rest of the travel period in Europe to have quality time together. He attached to his motion the travel itinerary, flight schedule, hotel accommodations and cruise details.
We note that the Sandiganbayan convicted the petitioner and others of violating Section 3 (e), in relation to Section 3 (g), both of Republic Act No. 3019, and sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to ten (10) years, as maximum. He has since been enjoying provisional liberty during his appeal of the conviction in this Court considering that none of the circumstances listed in Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court for the denial of his provisional liberty on bail was present.
We also note that the petitioner was previously granted by the Sandiganbayan authority to travel abroad on several occasions despite the issuance of the hold-departure order against him; and that he satisfactorily complied with all the conditions imposed on each of his travels abroad. He does not appear to the Court to be a flight risk considering that he continues to actively participate in the defense of his case, and that there was no reason for him not to return to the country where his family and his substantial business interests are located.
The Court GRANTS the petitioner's Motion for Leave to Travel Abroad.
Worthy to mention is that the grant of temporary liberty to an accused during the pendency of the criminal proceedings is an incident of judicial power. 1 Granting temporary liberty and authority to travel abroad to the accused upon his application after conviction by the trial court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment rests, therefore, in the court's exercise of its sound discretion; in the event that the trial court has imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six years, temporary liberty upon bail or foreign travel may be allowed to him provided his sentence is not yet final, and provided further that none of the circumstances enumerated under paragraph 3 of Section 5, Rule 114 2 of the Rules of Court is present. The foremost need is to ensure a fair equilibrium between the right of the accused to the presumption of his innocence, on the one hand, and the interest of the State to ensure that he will be ready to serve or suffer the penalty should he be eventually found liable for the crime charged, on the other.
In the case of the petitioner, the Court finds that he may be authorized to travel abroad with his family for the purposes and during the period he has relayed. He has shown that he will not be flight risk.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court AUTHORIZES petitioner RODOLFO G. VALENCIA to travel to Europe in the period from May 7, 2018 to May 26, 2018 subject to his compliance with the following conditions, to wit:
(1) The travel period shall be from May 7, 2018 to May 26, 2018, inclusive, subject only to extension as may be granted by the Court upon meritorious grounds;
(2) The petitioner shall deliver to the Court a cash bond of P100,000.00 within five (5) days from notice hereof;
(3) The petitioner shall designate a duly authorized representative who shall have the full authority to act for and in his behalf during the entire period of his absence from the country; and
(4) The petitioner shall transmit to the Court an advice in writing of his return to the country within five (5) days from his arrival.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of CourtBy:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Enrile v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015, 767 SCRA 282.
2. Section 5. Bail, when discretionary. — x x x
xxx xxx xxx
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar circumstances:
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
(b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification;
(c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or
(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal.