Practice question
A defendant remains on bail under a valid order requiring court permission for overseas travel. A prosecutor writes that the proposed trip is unobjectionable, but the court has neither granted leave nor lifted the condition. The defendant claims the letter alone nullifies the judicial restriction. Which analysis is best?
- A prosecutor’s view automatically vacates every judicial travel condition.
- The letter may be presented in support of the request, but it does not by itself substitute for the required court permission.
- The defendant may privately amend the bail order by attaching the letter.
- The foreign airline becomes the deciding court.
- The letter is a final acquittal.
Legal references
- Manotoc, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-62100, May 30, 1986, main decision, bail and judicial travel restrictions: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1986/may1986/gr_l-62100_1986.html
- Genuino v. De Lima, G.R. No. 197930 et al., April 17, 2018, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2018/apr2018/gr_197930_2018.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.