Imelda Marcos v. Sandiganbayan
Imelda Marcos v. Sandiganbayan
SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
➢ The petitioner, citing health reasons necessitating medical treatment abroad, made multiple
requests for permission to travel overseas, which the Sandiganbayan denied.
➢ Consequently, the petitioner sought certiorari to challenge the Sandiganbayan's resolutions,
alleging that they were issued with grave abuse of discretion, exceeding their jurisdiction.
➢ The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioner to file a new motion for travel
abroad based on her heart condition.
➢ The determination of her medical condition should be made by a panel of medical specialists
recommended by both the accused and the prosecution.
ISSUE:
➢ W.O.N. the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying the petitioner’s request to
travel abroad for medical treatment.
HELD:
➢ NO. Considering the foregoing we cannot say that respondent court trifled with petitioner’s
constitutionally guaranteed rights to life, health and liberty. What petitioner denounces as the
“unusual and unorthodox conduct of the trial” by the court’s Presiding Justice owed more, it
would seem, from the latter’s robust and rather active personality rather than to any ill motive or
hostility he entertained toward petitioner, the latter’s counsel or her witnesses. It is a matter of
record that on three different occasions, petitioner had been permitted to travel abroad. But her
later conviction in two cases dictated the need for greater caution. To be sure, the conviction is
not yet final in view of a motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner. But 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 discretion1.
RULING:
➢ WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of another motion for
leave to travel abroad, should petitioner still desire, based on her heart condition. In such an
event the determination of her medical condition should be made by a joint panel of medical
specialists recommended by both the accused and the prosecution2.
1
Marcos vs. Sandiganbayan, 247 SCRA 127, G.R. Nos. 115132-34 August 9, 1995
2
Ibid., p. 144