Case Digest - Garcia v. Sandiganbayan 2018
Case Digest - Garcia v. Sandiganbayan 2018
Such action of the Court did not oust it of The power to issue HDO is an inherent
jurisdiction over the cases and over the power belonging to the courts.
person of the accused. Movant remains It bears emphasizing that in Genuino
charged before the Court with the offenses v. De Lima, the Court already declared
described in the Informations filed. as unconstitutional DOJ Circular
No. 41 on the ground that it has no
******** ***** legal basis.
DOJ Circular No. 41 is not a law. to issue A.M. No. 18-07-05-SC pertaining to
The Court intentionally held that the the Rule on Precautionary Hold Departure
issuance of HDOs shall pertain only to Order, a remedy formulated to fill in the
criminal cases within the exclusive vacuum created by the declaration of nullity
jurisdiction of the RTC, to the of DOJ Circular No. 41.
exclusion of criminal cases falling
within the jurisdiction of the MTC and The HDOs were not prematurely issued
all other cases.
The circular was not meant to exclude [W]hile it is the Ombudsman who has
all other courts from issuing HDO but, the full discretion to determine
more accurately, seeks to make a whether or not a criminal case should
distinction among the types of be filed in the Sandiganbayan, once
criminal offenses by excluding less the case has been filed with said
grave and light offenses from the court, it is the Sandiganbayan, and no
instances when an HDO may be longer the Ombudsman, which has full
validly issued. control of the case so much so that the
The Sandiganbayan issues HDO informations may not be dismissed
because it has the authority to do so without the approval of the said court.
and this attaches from the moment it Verily, "once jurisdiction attaches, it
acquired jurisdiction over the case shall not be removed from the court
and over the person. In this case, until the termination of the case."
jurisdiction over the case was The rule, therefore, in this
acquired when the Informations jurisdiction is that once a
against the petitioner were filed with
complaint or information is filed in
the Sandiganbayan on July 19, 2012.
court, any disposition of the case,
Thereafter, the petitioner voluntarily
submitted herself to the jurisdiction whether it be dismissal or the
of the court by posting bail of conviction or the acquittal of the
P30,000.00 for each of the cases filed accused, rests in the sound
against her. discretion of the court.
The implication of posting of a Rule II Section 7 of Administrative Order
bond was well-explained No. 07 reads:
in Manotoc v. Court of b) The filing of a motion for
Appeals,73 viz.: reconsideration/reinvestigation shall not
A court has the power to prohibit a bar the filing of the corresponding
person admitted to bail from leaving information in Court on the basis of the
the Philippines. This is a necessary finding of probable cause in the resolution
consequence of the nature and
subject of the motion. (As amended by
function of a bail bond.
Administrative Order No. 15, dated February
16, 2000)
Thus, it is not entirely correct for the
petitioner to argue that the issuance of HDOs
amounted to an unreasonable restriction on Disposition:
her liberty of movement or right to travel. The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.