Manila: The Supreme Court has clarified that a precautionary hold departure order (PHDO) may be issued only in cases involving crimes punishable by a minimum penalty of at least six years and one day of imprisonment, or when the respondent is a foreigner, regardless of the penalty. In a decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the high tribunal's Third Division declared that a PHDO cannot be maintained when the crime under investigation does not meet these requirements.
According to Philippines News Agency, the case arose from a complaint filed against Faustine Feliz Abad regarding the purchase of airline tickets from GHT Travel and Tours (GHT). Abad allegedly purchased airline tickets for participants in the Maharlika Pilipinas Basketball League in Calgary, Canada, using several checks, two of which were dishonored for insufficient funds.
GHT owner Johanna Moulic filed a complaint against Abad for estafa under the Revised Penal Code and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), or the Bouncing Checks Law. Prosecutors found probable cause to charge Abad with two counts of violation of BP 22, but lacked sufficient evidence to charge her with estafa. Consequently, two criminal informations for BP 22 were filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila.
The prosecution also sought a PHDO against Abad with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), claiming she was a flight risk. The RTC granted this request. However, Abad later sought to have the PHDO lifted, which the RTC denied, citing that GHT had appealed the dismissal of the estafa charge to the Secretary of Justice and that Abad was a permanent resident of the United States.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that the PHDO should have been lifted. As per the Rule on PHDO, such an order may be issued while a criminal complaint is undergoing preliminary investigation only when the crime involved carries a minimum penalty of at least six years and one day of imprisonment, or if the respondent is a foreigner. The SC explained that since the estafa charge, which could have carried a penalty exceeding six years and one day, was dismissed for lack of probable cause, the only charges against Abad were two counts of BP 22 violations, each punishable by imprisonment of 30 days to one year. Thus, the BP 22 charges did not meet the penalty requirement for the issuance of a PHDO.
The high tribunal further clarified that PHDOs are meant to apply while the preliminary investigation is pending and that once an Information is filed in court, the rules governing regular Hold Departure Orders apply. The SC emphasized that the pending appeal before the Secretary of Justice regarding the dismissed estafa charge did not justify continuing to restrict Abad's right to travel, highlighting that the right to travel is guaranteed by the Constitution. The possibility that Abad might later be charged with estafa, depending on the appeal's outcome, was not sufficient to restrict this right.
