Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Cebu City

FORMER TWENTIETH DIVISION

RAYMOND D. LOW, CA-G.R. SP No. 10915

Petitioner,
Members:

MAXINO, Chairperson
- versus -
ALIÑO-GELUZ, &
*
MONTEJO-GONZAGA, JJ.

HON. ESTER M. VELOSO, IN HER

CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING
JUDGE OF BRANCH 6, REGIONAL Promulgated:
TRIAL COURT OF CEBU CITY, and
NOVEMBER 7, 2019
GERALDINE LOW
Respondents.

RESOLUTION
ALIÑO-GELUZ, J.

Before Us is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration1 of this

Court's Decision2 dated May 31, 2019, to which private respondent
filed a Comment/Opposition.3

Petitioner reiterates his former arguments that the trial court

gravely abused its discretion in issuing the Hold Departure Order.
Petitioner insists that he was never a flight risk, and only had to leave
the country in order to comply with his work and familial
obligations. According to petitioner, the issuance of the Hold
Departure Order would be counterproductive to the goal of
maintaining the court's jurisdiction as petitioner is already out of the
Philippines, and is merely seeking to enter the country precisely to
* Acting third member per Officer Order No. 90-19-RFB dated March 12, 2019, effective March 18, 2019.
1 Rollo, pp. 223-230.
2 Id., pp. 215-222.
3 Id., pp. 233-243.
CA-G.R. SP No. 10915 Page 2 of 3
Resolution

participate in the case below.

We are not persuanded.

Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration has not traversed any

matter that has not been considered and passed upon by this Court in
the subject Decision. In fact, We have thoroughly and
comprehensively treated all the matters raised by petitioner,
explicitly stating the factual and legal bases of Our Decision. Indeed,
We held:

“Verily, there was no error, much less grave abuse of

discretion, on the part of the public respondent when it issued the
HDO and denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
Undeniably, the public respondent had the power to issue an HDO
in cases under R.A. 9262. The HDO is but an exercise of its inherent
power to preserve and to maintain the effectiveness of its
jurisdiction over the case and the person of the accused. Here,
petitioner does not deny and, as a matter of fact, even reiterates that
he has every intention of leaving the country as he is employed
abroad. However, no matter how petitioner strongly emphasizes
that he needs to leave the country for his employment, it cannot be
denied that he is continuously violating the processes and orders of
the lower court. The ruling of the public respondent on the matter
is worth quoting, viz:

“The accused argues in his own Comment cum

Motion that for a hold departure order to issue,
'compelling reasons must be attendant such as
indications of flight risk of the subject, which could
possibly hamper the proceedings pending before the
court.' The court finds that the compelling reasons so
mentioned by the accused himself are attendant in the
cases at bar. He had known of the warrants against
him as early as March 2016 and yet, he never
surrendered to the court. He did so only in November
2016, when the prosecution filed this motion for the
issuance of a hold departure order against him.”

We uphold the course of action adopted by the public

respondent in taking into considerations petitioner's repeated
failure to appear before the court and in thereafter issuing, upon
motion of the prosecution, the HDO, in justified consonance with
our preceding disquisitions. xxx” (Citations omitted)
 CA-G.R. SP No. 10915 Page 3 of 3
Resolution

Verily, petitioner failed to present new arguments or matters

which may warrant a reversal or rectification of Our May 31, 2019
Decision.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for

Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
EMILY R. ALIÑO-GELUZ
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED ORIGINAL SIGNED

PAMELA ANN ABELLA MAXINO DOROTHY P. MONTEJO-GONZAGA
Associate Justice Associate Justice

012