Daily Tribune

NATION

CA upholds passport cancellation of lawyer who allegedly jumped bail

Alvin Murcia · Nov 3, 2026, 1:29 PM

Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals (CA) has denied a petition filed by lawyer and former Citra Metro Manila Tollways Corporation official Alvin Bugtas, upholding lower court orders canceling his passport and allowing his estafa trial to proceed in his absence.

In a decision dated 22 October 2026, the CA's Special Eleventh Division, through Associate Justice Mary Josephine Lazaro, rejected Bugtas' challenge to orders issued by the Mandaluyong City Regional Trial Court (RTC).

The case stems from an estafa complaint filed by San Miguel Holdings Corporation against Bugtas and several co-accused, including Indonesian businessman Shadik Wahono.

The dispute intensified after private prosecutors reported spotting Bugtas in Singapore without the required court permission to travel.

The RTC subsequently ordered the trial to proceed in absentia, directed the cancellation of Bugtas' passport and that of another accused, and ruled that most of the defendants had waived their right to cross-examine remaining prosecution witnesses.

Bugtas argued that the orders violated his constitutional rights to counsel and to confront witnesses. He maintained that his absence should only be treated as a waiver of his right to attend hearings.

The appellate court disagreed, ruling that an accused who has been arraigned and released on bail remains obligated to appear when ordered by the court.

The CA also admonished Bugtas, a lawyer, for leaving the country while on bail, describing his conduct as a "mockery" of the justice system.

It further noted that Bugtas filed his petition from Zion, Illinois, and ruled that he could not seek judicial relief while remaining beyond the court's jurisdiction.

The appellate court upheld the trial court's findings that Bugtas' failure to comply with its directives had consequences for the exercise of his procedural rights, including cross-examination.

The ruling allows the estafa proceedings to continue, although the underlying criminal allegations remain unresolved.