Defensor Santiago Vs Vasquez

Defensor-Santiago vs Vasquez
Facts:
Miriam Defensor-Santiago was charged with violation of Section 3(e), Republic Act No.
3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act before the
Sandiganbayan. An order of arrest was issued against her with bail for her release fixed at
P15,000.00. She filed an "Urgent Ex-parte Motion for Acceptance of Cash Bail Bond". The
Sandiganbayan issued a resolution authorizing the Santiago to post cash bond which the
later filed in the amount of P15,000.00. Her arraignment was set, but she asked for the
cancellation of her bail bond and that she be allowed provisional release on recognizance.
The Sandiganbayan deferred the arraignment. Meanwhile, it issued a hold departure order
against Santiago by reason of the announcement she made, which was widely publicized in
both print and broadcast media, that she would be leaving for the U.S. to accept a
fellowship at Harvard University. She directly filed a "Motion to Restrain the Sandiganbayan
from Enforcing its Hold Departure Order with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction" with the SC. She argued that the
Sandiganbayan acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion
in issuing the hold departure order considering that it had not acquired jurisdiction over her
person as she has neither been arrested nor has she voluntarily surrendered. The hold
departure order was also issued sua sponte without notice and hearing. She likewise argued
that the hold departure order violates her right to due process, right to travel and freedom of
speech.
Issues:
1. Has the Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction over the person of Santiago?
2. Did the Sandiganbayan err when it issued the hold departure order without any motion
from the prosecution and without notice and hearing?
3. Has Santiago's right to travel been impaired?
Held:
1. How the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
It has been held that where after the filing of the complaint or information a warrant for the
arrest of the accused is issued by the trial court and the accused either
voluntarily submitted himself to the court or was duly arrested, the court
thereby acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The voluntary appearance of
the accused, whereby the court acquires jurisdiction over his person, is accomplished either
by his pleading to the merits (such as by filing a motion to quash or other pleadings
requiring the exercise of the court's jurisdiction thereover, appearing for arraignment,
entering trial) or by filing bail. On the matter of bail, since the same is intended to obtain the
provisional liberty of the accused, as a rule the same cannot be posted before custody of
the accused has been acquired by the judicial authorities either by his arrest or voluntary
surrender.
Santiago is deemed to have voluntarily submitted herself to the jurisdiction of respondent

court upon the filing of her "Urgent Ex-parte Motion for Acceptance of Cash Bail Bond"
wherein she expressly sought leave "that she be considered as having placed herself under
the jurisdiction of (the Sandiganbayan) for purposes of the required trial and other
proceedings," and categorically prayed "that the bail bond she is posting in the amount of
P15,000.00 be duly accepted" and that by said motion "she be considered as having placed
herself under the custody" of said court. Santiago cannot now be heard to claim otherwise
for, by her own representations, she is effectively estopped from asserting the contrary after
she had earlier recognized the jurisdiction of the court and caused it to exercise that
jurisdiction over the aforestated pleadings she filed therein.
2. The ex parte issuance of a hold-departure order was a valid exercise of the presiding
court’s inherent power to preserve and to maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction
over the case and the person of the accused.
Santiago does not deny and, as a matter of fact, even made a public statement that she had
every intention of leaving the country allegedly to pursue higher studies abroad. We uphold
the course of action adopted by the Sandiganbayan in taking judicial notice of such fact of
petitioner's plan to go abroad and in thereafter issuing sua sponte the hold departure order.
To reiterate, the hold departure order is but an exercise of respondent court's inherent
power to preserve and to maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and the
person of the accused.
3. By posting bail, an accused holds himself amenable at all times to the orders and
processes of the court, thus, he may legally be prohibited from leaving the country during
the pendency of the case.
Since under the obligations assumed by petitioner in her bail bond she holds herself

amenable at all times to the orders and processes of the court, she may legally be
prohibited from leaving the country during the pendency of the case. Parties with
pending cases should apply for permission to leave the country from the very same courts
which, in the first instance, are in the best position to pass upon such applications and to
impose the appropriate conditions therefor since they are conversant with the facts of
the cases and the ramifications or implications thereof. (Defensor-Santiago vs. Vasquez,
217 SCRA 633 (1993), G.R. Nos. 99289-90, January 27, 1993)

Defensor Santiago Vs Vasquez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Defensor Santiago Vs Vasquez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Defensor Santiago Vs Vasquez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Defensor-Santiago vs Vasquez

1. Has the Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction over the person of Santiago?

3. Has Santiago's right to travel been impaired?

1. How the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

Santiago is deemed to have voluntarily submitted herself to the jurisdiction of respondent

Since under the obligations assumed by petitioner in her bail bond she holds herself

You might also like