Dear Attorney,

Can an MTC issue a Hold Departure Order (HDO) against a person convicted of slight physical injury?

Concerned Citizen

Insights

A Hold Departure Order (HDO) is a legal mechanism in the Philippines that prohibits an individual from leaving the country. This legal concept is governed by the Rules of Court and other relevant laws and regulations. An HDO is typically issued by courts in criminal cases, particularly when the court deems it necessary to ensure that the accused remains within the country’s jurisdiction throughout the proceedings. However, whether an HDO can be issued depends on various factors, including the nature of the offense, the type of court involved, and the legal grounds presented.

Jurisdiction and Authority to Issue HDO

Under Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 41, which governs the issuance of Hold Departure Orders, Watchlist Orders (WLO), and Allow Departure Orders (ADO), it is clarified that only Regional Trial Courts (RTC) have the authority to issue Hold Departure Orders in criminal cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTC), Municipal Trial Courts (MTC), and other lower courts do not have the same power to issue HDOs unless otherwise authorized by law.

For cases involving slight physical injuries, which fall under the jurisdiction of MTCs, the courts do not have the statutory power to issue HDOs, as such orders are typically reserved for more serious offenses like crimes punishable by imprisonment of more than six years. Crimes like slight physical injuries, which are penalized with imprisonment of less than one year under the Revised Penal Code, generally do not meet the criteria for HDO issuance.

Crimes for Which HDOs Are Commonly Issued

As mentioned, HDOs are more commonly issued in cases where there is a serious criminal charge. These include but are not limited to:

Heinous crimes, such as murder, rape, or large-scale drug trafficking.
Serious financial crimes, like large-scale fraud or estafa involving significant amounts of money.
Offenses involving national security.

The rationale behind issuing an HDO is to ensure that the accused remains within the jurisdiction of the court, particularly when there is a risk of flight. For minor crimes, like slight physical injury, the court usually presumes that the risk of flight is low, and therefore, HDOs are typically not deemed necessary.

Grounds for Issuing an HDO

Even in cases where an HDO is considered, the issuance of such an order depends on certain factors. The prosecution or the party requesting the HDO must present sufficient justification to the court. Some common grounds include:

Risk of Flight: If the accused is likely to flee the country and evade justice.
Nature of the Crime: As previously mentioned, the seriousness of the crime significantly impacts whether an HDO will be granted.
Position of the Accused: If the accused holds a position of influence or power that might allow them to escape prosecution, the court may consider issuing an HDO.
Stage of the Case: If the case has reached a critical point, such as trial or sentencing, the court may be more inclined to issue an HDO to ensure the presence of the accused.

For minor cases like slight physical injury, these factors are generally less pressing, reducing the likelihood that an HDO would be granted.

DOJ's Role in Issuing HDOs

The Department of Justice (DOJ) plays a key role in implementing and managing HDOs. The DOJ can issue a Watchlist Order or an HDO upon the request of law enforcement agencies or courts. This is typically done in cases where there is a significant concern about national security, the public interest, or when the accused is involved in serious criminal offenses. For cases within the jurisdiction of lower courts like the MTC, the DOJ’s intervention is rarely required unless there are extraordinary circumstances.

Travel Ban and Bail Conditions

In less severe cases, such as those involving slight physical injury, the court may impose travel restrictions as a condition for the grant of bail rather than issuing a formal HDO. This is particularly true if the accused is considered a flight risk. The accused may be required to surrender their passport or submit to other travel limitations. These conditions are meant to ensure the accused's attendance at trial without resorting to the more drastic measure of a hold departure order.

Remedy for Unlawfully Issued HDO

If an HDO is issued without proper legal basis, the accused has the right to challenge the order. A motion for reconsideration can be filed before the court that issued the HDO, asking for its lifting. If denied, an appeal may be made to higher courts, such as the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, for relief.

Additionally, the accused may approach the DOJ for the lifting of the HDO, especially if it was issued based on erroneous information or for a case outside the court's jurisdiction.

Conclusion

To summarize, an MTC cannot generally issue a Hold Departure Order (HDO) for cases involving minor offenses like slight physical injury. HDOs are typically issued by Regional Trial Courts (RTC) for more serious crimes or under special circumstances where flight risk is a significant concern. Minor offenses do not usually warrant such restrictive measures, though the court may impose travel restrictions through bail conditions. The legal framework governing HDOs in the Philippines is clear, and any party affected by an HDO may seek remedy through the courts or the DOJ if there is a lack of legal basis for its issuance.