Government of US vs Purganan GR No.

148571
FACTS:
The United States Government sent to the Philippine Government Note
Verbale No. 0522 supplemented by other Notes and authenticated
documents requesting the extradition of Mark B. Jimenez (also known as
Mario Batacan Crespo), who was the subject of an arrest warrant issued by
the United States in connection with charges which includes conspiracy to
defraud the US. Upon receipt of the Notes and documents, the secretary of
foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for
appropriate action. To prevent the escape of Jimenez, the petitioner prayed
for the issuance of an order for his immediate arrest. In his Memorandum,
Jimenez prayed that in case a warrant should issue, he be allowed to post
bail in the amount of P100,000. This prayer was set for hearing, after which
the lower court ordered issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for
his temporary liberty at one million pesos in cash. After he had surrendered
his passport and posted the required cash bond, Jimenez was granted
provisional liberty via the challenged Order dated July 4, 2001. Hence, this
petition, which prays inter alia for the lifting of the bail order.
Jimenez maintains that the Constitution secures the right to bail of all
persons, including those sought to be extradited. Supposedly, the only
exceptions are the ones charged with offenses punishable with reclusion
perpetua, when evidence of guilt is strong.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the constitutional right to bail applies to extradition
proceedings

HELD
No, the constitutional right to bail does not apply to extradition proceedings.
Extradition proceedings are not equivalent to a criminal case in which guilt
or innocence is determined. Consequently, an extradition case is not one in
which the constitutional rights of the accused are necessarily available. It is
more akin to a courts request to police authorities for the arrest of the
accused who is at large or has escaped detention or jumped bail. Having

once escaped the jurisdiction of the requesting state, the reasonable prima
facie presumption is that the person would escape again if given the
opportunity. The proceedings are intended merely to assist the requesting
state in bringing the accused -- or the fugitive who has illegally escaped -back to its territory, so that the criminal process may proceed therein. In
extradition cases, bail is not a matter of right; it is subject to judicial
discretion in the context of the peculiar facts of each case.
Extradition proceedings should be conducted with all deliberate
speed to determine compliance with the Extradition Treaty and Law.
Our country should not be converted into a dubious haven where fugitives
and escapees can unreasonably delay, mummify, mock, frustrate,
checkmate and defeat the quest for bilateral justice and international
cooperation.

(Note: This ruling is modified later in Government of Hong Kong v Olalia,

where the Court stated that if bail can be granted in deportation cases, there
is no reason why it cannot be invoked in extradition cases; after all, both are
administrative proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the person
detained is not in issue)