Marcos vs. Sandiganbayan 247 SCRA 127 August 9, 1995 Petitioner: Imelda R.

Marcos Respondent: Sandiganbayan (First Division) and the People of the Philippines Case: Petition for certiorari to review the judgment resolutions of the First Division of the Sandiganbayan. Facts: y Former First Lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos is the defendant in several criminal cases for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), now pending in the Sandiganbayan and in the regular courts. y In two of these cases, she was found guilty by the First Division of the Sandiganbayan and was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 9-12 years, with perpetual disqualification from office. A motion for reconsideration is pending. y December 24, 1993 - After her conviction, she filed a Motion for Leave to Travel Abroad to seek diagnostic tests and treatment in China because of a serious and life-threatening medical condition requiring facilities not available in the Philippines. This was denied cause of failure to give notice to the prosecution and the time asked was too short for the court to inform itself of the basis of the motion. y December 29, 1993 Marcos filed in another case an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Permission to Travel Abroad to undergo diagnosis and treatment in China. This motion was supported by medical reports conducted by her physician and cardiologist, Dr. Roberto V. Anastacio and other doctors from Makati Medical Center. y January 4, 1994 She filed in another case a Motion for Leave to Travel Abroad to place including the United States and Europe, if necessary, for treatment of hypertensive heart diseases, uncontrolled angina pectoris and anterior myocardial infarction. Alleged that these tests are not available locally. y The Chairman of Sandiganbayan s First Division, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena wrote a letter to Dr. Gregorio B. Patacsil, Officer-in-Charge of the Philippine Heart Center asking for an expert opinion on coronary medicine. The questions asked were the following: o Is petitioner s condition life-threatening? o What are the sophisticated biochemical tests necessary (not merely desirable, in any are needed at all, to ascertain and remedy her condition? o Are these tests available here?

y y

o Is the present level of expertise in the Philippines adequate to respond to her condition? The Presidential Commission on Good Government filed a manifestion interposing no objection based on humanitarian reasons, as long as petitioner complies with the terms and conditions for the travel. The Office of the Special Prosecutor opposed the motionssince necessaity to go abroad was not demonstrated and that her conviction in two previous criminal cases may motivate her not to return. January 7, 1994 Hearing on the motion. Petitioner s counsel asked the court to add a further question to be sent to Dr. Patacsil. ( Without the Biochemical test, may proper treatment be administered to Mrs. Marcos? ). They also included the list of medicines being taken by petitioner as part of the study. January 17, 1994 another Supplement to the Motion for Leave Abroad was filed together with letters and endorsement from various doctors and hospitals from the United States and China. January 20, 1994 The Sandiganbayan received the report from the Philippine Heart Center done by a committee of cardiologists led by Dr. Abarquez. This contained findings which were contrary to the conclusions of petitioner s physicians. February 18, 1994 The court denied the petitioner s motions. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and a Motion to Admit Clinical Summary and to Resolve Motion for Reconsideration. The clinical summary was a recent medical report conducted at the Philippine Heart Center. Petitioner also filed a Motion to Admit Recognizance in Support of, and to Resolve Soonest, the Motion for Reconsideration to Travel Abroad. Attached to this were letter from Vice President Joseph Estrada offering to be guarantor for the return of petitioner and letters from 24 congressmen (including Speaker Jose de Venecia) requesting the court to allow petitioner to travel abroad. April 19, 1994 Respondent Court denied petitioner s motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. It also expressed disapproval of the interventions of the Vice President and the congressmen. Hence this petition. Petitioners claim the following: o The Sandiganbayan arbitrarily disregarded the testimonies and medical findings of Imelda s attending physicians and merely substituted them with the academic views of the committee from the Philippine Heart Center, who never examined the victim personally. o It adopted an unusual and unorthodox conduct of trial since it contacted a third part asking for an opinion on petitioner s motion and medical findings and that this evidence was not presented by the petitioner.

o It failed to resolve that, in the clash between basic constitutional rights of the petitioner and the authority of the court over the petitioner, the basic constitutional rights must prevail. o It considered the conviction of petitioner in two criminal cases which are pending reconsideration as factors in denying her rights. o The perception that there is no imperative necessity for petitioner to avail of medical treatment abroad cannot constitute a cause to deny or deprive petitioner of her constitutional rights. Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner s request to travel abroad for medical treatment. NO!!! Ratio: y Regarding Expert Opinions / Amici-Curiae o Respondent court had to seek expert opinion because petitioner's motion was based on the advice of her physician. The court could not be expected to just accept the opinion of petitioner's physician in resolving her request for permission to travel. o The subject lay beyond the competence of the court, and hence, it only followed the prudent course available of seeking the opinion of specialists in that field. o Indeed, when even in their own field of expertise (law) courts are allowed to invite amici curiae to shed light on recondite points of law, there is no reason for denying them assistance on other subjects o Presiding Justice Garchitorena's letter to Dr. Patacsil is notable in this regard for its sedulous concern for "greater need for information and expert advise" to the end that respondent court may be able to determine "whether or not it is necessary and urgent for petitioner to travel abroad. o What would be objectionable would be if respondent court obtained information without disclosing its source to the parties and used it in deciding a case against them. Then the parties could justifiably complain that their right to due process has been violated. But, in this case, everything was on the level, with the parties taking part in the proceedings of the court. o Also, petitioner is estoped from questioning what she now calls the "unusual and unorthodox" manner of resolving her request for permission to travel abroad since her counsel even submitted additional questions and later on cross-examined the leader of the committee (Dr. Abarquez)

The Sandiganbayan disregarded the findings and recommendations of petitioner s own physicians because petitioner failed to prove the necessity for a trip abroad. considering the fact that she is facing charges before the courts in several cases, in two of which she was convicted although the decision is still pending reconsideration, petitioner did not have an absolute right to leave the country and the burden was on her to prove that because of danger to health if not to her life there was necessity to seek medical treatment in foreign countries it was unnecessary for the Philippine Heart Center's specialists to examine the petitioner personally. Given the findings of petitioner's own physicians, they found that petitioner had not been shown to be suffering from coronary artery disease and uncontrolled high blood pressure (labile hypertension). Relevant portions of the Dr. Abarquez and The Committe s findings: o The diagnosis of hypertensive heart disease is questionable. o The committee questioned the need for petitioner to have biochemical tests abroad. Even without these tests, it noted, Dr. Anastacio had "already been treating her with medicines that are used for hypertension and coronary heart disease." o With respect to Dr. Anastacio's claim that petitioner is in the high risk group of sudden cardiac death, the committee stated that a history of sudden death in the family alone will not support such a conclusion o The tests we have recommended are available in the Philippines. Proper treatment can be given to Mrs. Marcos even in the absence of the suggested biochemical tests. o The present facilities and expertise in the Philippines are more than adequate to diagnose and treat patients with hypertension and/or coronary heart disease. The evidence submitted to it, according to the Abarquez committee, "[did] not confirm the allegation that Mrs. Marcos is in the high risk group of sudden cardiac death." Perhaps the best proof that she is not in the group is the fact that she ran in the last election for a seat in the House of Representative and won. It may be assumed that she waged an arduous political campaign but apparently is none the worse for it. Despite the fact that Imelda was given permission to travel on three previous occasions before, her later conviction in two cases dictated the need for greater caution. Indeed, conviction is not yet final due to the motion for reconsideration. But a person's right to travel is subject to the usual contraints 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 reason is a matter of the court's sound discretion. The active intervention of the Presiding Judge is justified by the fact that the subject with which the court was dealing was a highly technical one and he wanted to clarify for himself a number of medical question. The Court s Suggestion o Petitioner should have requested an examination of her medical condition by a joint team of cardiologist and other medical experts instead of having the findings of her physician reviewed by the other specialists. A joint investigation will have the advantage of not being unduly adversarial since the purpose is the common objective of arriving at a consensus among the experts. o It is not yet late for the petitioner to ask for this. She can file another motion before the Sandiganbayan. This is suggested because during the pendency of this action, petitioner filed a motion for leave to travel, this time on the ground that she is suffering from a difficult type of glaucoma which threatens to make her blind. o This is supported by a medical certificate of Dr. Manuel B. Agulto, opthalmologist and glaucoma expert, who recommends that petitioner see Dr. Richard J. Simmons of Boston, Massachusetts, and avail herself of his "internationally renowned expertise and recognized authority in this particularly difficult glaucoma type." o This motion should be addressed to the Sandiganbayan not only because whether petitioner should be allowed to leave the country is its primary concern but also because the determination of petitioner's eye condition is question of fact to be made in the first instance by the Sandiganbayan.

Held: The petitioner is DISMISSED without prejudice to the filling 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 joint panel of medical specialists recommended by both the accused and the prosecution. Petitioner's motion for leave to travel for medical treatment of her alleged failing eyesight is hereby REFERRED to the Sandiganbayan with directive to the latter to appoint a joint panel of eye specialists as outlined above. Memory Aid / Crammer-Friendly Version: y Former First Lady Imelda Marcos is charged with several cases of graft and corruption lodged with the Sandiganbayan and other lower courts. y She was already convicted in two of these cases.

y y

y y

She filed several petitions asking the court to allow her to leave the country to seek medical treatment abroad, primarily because of heart problems. She alleged that the proper treatments are not available in the Philippines. The First Division of the Sandiganbayan, through its Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena wrote a letter to the Philippine Heart Center to ask for an expert opinion on the matter. The eventual reply by the team of cardiologists from the Philippine Heart Center is that the diagnoses conducted by Imelda s personal doctors are questionable. Her sickness could not be proved outright. Also, it said that the tests can be conducted in the Philippines and that there are more than adequate facilities available locally. Hence, the Sandiganbayan denied the motions. The motion for reconsideration was also not granted. Petitioner alleges that the Sandiganbayan committed GADALEJ in not allowing her to travel because it is an attack against the right to travel of Mrs. Marcos. Also, she questions the act of the Sandiganbayan in giving more weight to the report conducted by the team of cardiologists than her own physician. SC ruled in favour of Sandiganbayan. It upheld the expert opinions given by the medical practitioners since the subject is beyond the competence of the court. 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 reason is a matter of the court's sound discretion.