You are on page 1of 20

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the [Court] finds probable cause

EN BANC against respondent Mark Jimenez. Accordingly let a Warrant for the arrest of
the respondent be issued.Consequently and taking into consideration Section
9, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, this Court fixes the
[G.R. No. 148571. September 24, 2002] reasonable amount of bail for respondents temporary liberty at ONE
MILLION PESOS (Php 1,000,000.00), the same to be paid in cash.

Furthermore respondent is directed to immediately surrender to this Court his
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, passport and the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation is likewise directed
represented by the Philippine Department of to include the name of the respondent in its Hold Departure List.[4]
Justice, petitioner, vs. Hon. GUILLERMO G. PURGANAN,
Morales, and Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Essentially, the Petition prays for the lifting of the bail Order, the
Manila, Branch 42; and MARK B. JIMENEZ a.k.a. MARIO cancellation of the bond, and the taking of Jimenez into legal custody.
BATACAN CRESPO, respondents.

This Petition is really a sequel to GR No. 139465 entitled Secretary
In extradition proceedings, are prospective extraditees entitled to of Justice v. Ralph C. Lantion.[5]
notice and hearing before warrants for their arrest can be
issued? Equally important, are they entitled to the right to bail and Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty,[6] the United
provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending? In States Government, through diplomatic channels, sent to the Philippine
general, the answer to these two novel questions is Government Note Verbale No. 0522 dated June 16, 1999,
No. The explanation of and the reasons for, as well as supplemented by Note Nos. 0597, 0720 and 0809 and accompanied by
the exceptions to, this rule are laid out in this Decision. duly authenticated documents requesting the extradition of Mark B.
Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo. Upon receipt of the
Notes and documents, the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted
them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate action, pursuant
The Case to Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1069, also known as the
Extradition Law.
Before us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Upon learning of the request for his extradition, Jimenez sought
Court, seeking to void and set aside the Orders dated May 23, and was granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by the RTC of
2001[1] and July 3, 2001[2] issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 25.[7] The TRO prohibited the Department of Justice
Manila, Branch 42.[3] The first assailed Order set for hearing petitioners (DOJ) from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition. The validity
application for the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of Respondent of the TRO was, however, assailed by the SOJ in a Petition before this
Mark B. Jimenez. Court in the said GR No. 139465. Initially, the Court -- by a vote of 9-6
The second challenged Order, on the other hand, directed the -- dismissed the Petition. The SOJ was ordered to furnish private
issuance of a warrant, but at the same time granted bail to respondent copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers
Jimenez. The dispositive portion of the Order reads as follows: and to grant the latter a reasonable period within which to file a
comment and supporting evidence.[8]

Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the SOJ, this for his temporary liberty at one million pesos in cash.[11] After he had
Court issued its October 17, 2000 Resolution.[9] By an identical vote of surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond, Jimenez
9-6 -- after three justices changed their votes -- it reconsidered and was granted provisional liberty via the challenged Order dated July 4,
reversed its earlier Decision. It held that private respondent was bereft 2001.[12]
of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the
extradition process. This Resolution has become final and executory. Hence, this Petition.[13]

Finding no more legal obstacle, the Government of the United
States of America, represented by the Philippine DOJ, filed with the Issues
RTC on May 18, 2001, the appropriate Petition for Extradition which
was docketed as Extradition Case No. 01192061. The Petition
alleged, inter alia, that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest warrant Petitioner presents the following issues for the consideration of this
issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Court:
Florida on April 15, 1999. The warrant had been issued in connection
with the following charges in Indictment No. 99-00281 CR-SEITZ: (1)
conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit certain offenses
in violation of Title 18 US Code Section 371; (2) tax evasion, in violation The public respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
of Title 26 US Code Section 7201; (3) wire fraud, in violation of Title 18 grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
US Code Sections 1343 and 2; (4) false statements, in violation of Title adopting a procedure of first hearing a potential extraditee before issuing an
18 US Code Sections 1001 and 2; and (5) illegal campaign arrest warrant under Section 6 of PD No. 1069.
contributions, in violation of Title 2 US Code Sections 441b, 441f and
437g(d) and Title 18 US Code Section 2. In order to prevent the flight II.
of Jimenez, the Petition prayed for the issuance of an order for his
immediate arrest pursuant to Section 6 of PD No. 1069. The public respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Respondent Jimenez granting the prayer for bail and in allowing Jimenez to go on provisional
filed before it an Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion,[10] which prayed liberty because:
that petitioners application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing.
In its assailed May 23, 2001 Order, the RTC granted the Motion of 1. An extradition court has no power to authorize bail, in the absence of any
Jimenez and set the case for hearing on June 5, 2001. In that hearing, law that provides for such power.
petitioner manifested its reservations on the procedure adopted by the
trial court allowing the accused in an extradition case to be heard prior 2. Section 13, Article III (right to bail clause) of the 1987 Philippine
to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Constitution and Section 4, Rule 114 (Bail) of the Rules of Court, as
amended, which [were] relied upon, cannot be used as bases for allowing bail
After the hearing, the court a quo required the parties to submit in extradition proceedings.
their respective memoranda. In his Memorandum, Jimenez sought an
alternative prayer: that in case a warrant should issue, he be allowed
3. The presumption is against bail in extradition proceedings or proceedings
to post bail in the amount of P100,000.
leading to extradition.
The alternative prayer of Jimenez was also set for hearing on June
15, 2001. Thereafter, the court below issued its questioned July 3, 2001 4. On the assumption that bail is available in extradition proceedings or
Order, directing the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail proceedings leading to extradition, bail is not a matter of right but only of


This rule. though. vs.[18] (CA). Preliminarily. SP No. The conditions attached to the grant of bail are ineffectual and do not ensure compliance by the Philippines with its obligations under the RP-US For resorting directly to this Court instead of the CA. the Court has also ruled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration before availment of the remedy of certiorari is not a sine qua non. The Court of Appeals Resolution promulgated on May 10. The risk that Jimenez will flee is high. absent factual and legal basis 6. the substantive questions that this Court will address are: attitude of refusal. petitioner Extradition Treaty.[16] 7. (2) the assailed orders are a patent nullity. unless guided by for his arrest can be issued. Presiding Judge. we shall take up the alleged prematurity of the them opportunity to flee and thus. RTC. a petition for certiorari before a higher court will extradition postulates that will guide us in disposing of the substantive not prosper unless the inferior court has been given. as the passage that will engender a well-founded belief that he will not flee. a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with.[19] As a fourth exception. 64589. would provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are resolve to grant bail in favor of the potential extraditees and would give pending.discretion upon clear showing by the applicant of the existence of special Alleged Prematurity of Present Petition circumstances. instead of in this Court. and no special circumstance exists therefor. the issues in the present case also involve pure questions of law that are Preliminary Matters of public interest. and (4) the issues raised are purely of law. Manila. the parties would still bring the matter to this case entitled Eduardo T. and (2) whether he is entitled to bail and to the decision that this Honorable Court will render in this case. the justify release on bail.[20] Aside from being of this nature. of sufficient time would give Jimenez ample opportunity to escape and avoid extradition. as those that have already been squarely argued and exhaustively passed upon by the lower court. filing of a reconsideration motion would serve no useful purpose. for reconsideration. Petitioner submits the following justifications for not filing a Motion for Reconsideration in the Extradition Court: (1) the issues were fully 5. when the questions raised are the same The Petition is meritorious. and (3) there are pending issues on bail both in the (1) whether Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant extradition courts and the Court of Appeals. 2001 in the issues and decides them. Rodriguez et al. through a motion issues. (2) the respondent in granting bail. (2) when public interest is involved. a chance to correct the errors imputed to it. Assuming that bail is a matter of discretion in extradition proceedings. 3 . Hence. cause adverse effect on the ability of Petition for Certiorari arising from petitioners failure to file a Motion for the Philippines to comply with its obligations under existing extradition Reconsideration in the RTC and to seek relief in the Court of Appeals treaties. submits the following reasons: (1) even if the petition is lodged with the Court of Appeals and such appellate court takes cognizance of the 8.[14] disallowing bail but the court below refused to recognize the decision as a judicial guide and all other courts might likewise adopt the same In sum.[15] We shall also preliminarily discuss five As a general rule. The Hon. has certain exceptions: (1) when the issue raised is purely of law. which. relied upon by the public have a binding precedent that all lower courts ought to follow. CA-G. Honorable Court to have the issues resolved once and for all [and] to Branch 17. or (3) in case of The Courts Ruling urgency. had been recalled before the issuance of the Honorable Court of Appeals had in one case[17] ruled on the issue by subject bail orders.R. the considered by such court after requiring the parties to submit their public respondent received no evidence of special circumstances which may respective memoranda and position papers on the matter and thus. and (3) the need for relief is extremely urgent.

Such proceedings constitute a matter and. This is The substantive issues raised in this case require an interpretation established policy. clearly and specifically set out in the petition. as signatory. Torres vs. must always be avoided. important reasons therefor. A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction to issue Five Postulates of Extradition these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor. al. x x x requiring the petitioners to file their petition first Crime. In the instant petition. over petitions for certiorari. Corona[22]we stated: prohibition. the petition filed directly [before] it if compelling reasons. Arranz. we deem it best to take vs. extradition treaties are entered into for the purpose of That the Court has the power to set aside its own rules in the higher interests suppressing crime[27] by facilitating the arrest and the custodial of justice is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence. warrant. x x x. we Today. suspended its own rules and excepted a particular case from their operation whenever the higher interests of justice so require. Accordingly. et. Their strict and rigid application. magnitude of the problem created by the issuance of the assailed 1. mandamus. We reiterate what we said transfer[28] of a fugitive[29] from one state to the other. This has been the judicial policy to In the interest of justice and to settle once and for all the important be observed and which has been reiterated in subsequent cases. A cardinal rule in the interpretation of a treaty or a law is to ascertain and give effect to Pursuant to said judicial policy. the flight of affluent criminals from one country to another for the Be it remembered that rules of procedure are but mere tools designed to purpose of committing crime and evading prosecution has become facilitate the attainment of justice.[30] It is the only regular system that has been devised to return fugitives to the jurisdiction of a court In a number of other exceptional cases. quo warranto and habeas corpus.[24] we held as follows: competent to try them in accordance with municipal and international law. First. Bercero vs. this Court has boundaries. in Piczon vs. Likewise. and we entertain direct resort to us in cases where special and important reasons or exceptional [T]he Supreme Court has the full discretionary power to take cognizance of and compelling circumstances justify the same. x x x. Moreover. no local jurisprudence to guide lower courts.[26] understanding certain postulates of extradition will aid us correctly observed by petitioners. De Guzman.[21] In Fortich v.[25] Since PD 1069 is intended as a guide for the the present petition in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future implementation of extradition treaties to which the Philippines is a litigations so as to promptly put an end to the present controversy which. As we have further stated in Cuaresma: of first impression over which there is. governments are adjusting their methods would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote of dealing with criminals and crimes that transcend international substantial justice. we resolve to take primary jurisdiction over its intent.[31] 4 . cognizance of the present case. et. al. Time and again. Court of Appeals:[23] With the advent of easier and faster means of international travel. concurrent with that of Regional Trial jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari when there are special and Courts and the Court of Appeals. namely: Uy issue of bail in extradition proceedings. as yet. Contreras. Advincula vs. this Court has allowed a direct invocation of its original This Court has original jurisdiction. or construction of the treaty and the law on extradition. or the nature and importance of the issues raised. with the Court of Appeals would only result in a waste of time and money. Legaspi. a majority of nations in the world community have come to forego a lengthy disquisition of the proper procedure that should have been look upon extradition as the major effective instrument of international taken by the parties involved and proceed directly to the merits of the case.. co-operation in the suppression of crime. which more frequent. has sparked national interest because of the in properly deciding the issues raised here. Extradition Is a Major Instrument for the Suppression of resolution.

we admission of evidence under less stringent standards. so the existence of effective extradition Lantion. More and more. and that both accept and trust. undergoing universalization. the process of extradition does not involve the determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused. otherwise. our duly authorized nations foreign relations before making the ultimate decision to extradite. unlike in a criminal case where judgment becomes executory upon being rendered final. it is evident that the extradition court is not protect the basic rights of the person sought to be extradited. in extradition which is sui generis -. an extradition treaty presupposes that both parties thereto adheres to a similar practice whereby the Secretary of State exercises wide have examined. Laws involving crimes and crime prevention are extraditee x x x. Finally.[34] More pointedly. especially transnational crimes. crimes are becoming determine the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot be invoked by an the concern of one world. It is not a criminal proceeding which will call into operation all the rights of an accused as guaranteed by In Secretary v. His guilt or The Philippines also has a national interest to help in suppressing crimes and innocence will be adjudged in the court of the state where he will be one way to do it is to facilitate the extradition of persons covered by treaties extradited. One manifest purpose of this trend towards globalization is to deny easy refuge to a criminal whose activities threaten the xxxxxxxxx peace and progress of civilized countries. all relevant and basic rights in the proceedings will only result in needless duplication and criminal proceedings that will take place therein. upon to be extradited. Extradition is merely a measure of international judicial 5 . The United States Second. in this era of globalization. From an absence of extradition not. showing of the existence of a prima facie case. Hence. Lantion[33] we explained: the Bill of Rights. In contradistinction to a criminal Indeed. For to the extent that efficient means of detection and the threat of 3. We need to cooperate with of evidence to be satisfied.[37] Such determination during the extradition extradition to the requesting state. and an expanding ring of international crimes and criminals. each others legal discretion in balancing the equities of the case and the demands of the system and judicial process. It is to the great interest of the Philippines to be part of this irreversible movement in light of its There are other differences between an extradition proceeding and a criminal vulnerability to crimes. the constitutional rights of the accused are at commissi play a corresponding role in the deterrence of flight abroad in order fore. as a rule. our courts may adjudge an individual extraditable but the President has the final discretion to extradite him. territorial limits of a State. To begin with. in an 2. them is that the number of criminals seeking refuge abroad will be reduced.[36] extradition proceedings are not criminal in nature.[35] That called upon to ascertain the guilt or the innocence of the person sought signature signifies our full faith that the accused will be given. constitutional rights that are only relevant to duly entered [into] by our government. The Proceedings Are Sui Generis punishment play a significant role in the deterrence of crime within the Third. a criminal case requires proof beyond reasonable other states in order to improve our chances of suppressing crime in doubt for conviction while a fugitive may be ordered extradited upon our own country.An important practical effect x x x of the recognition of the principle that would not have been signed. arrangements flight abroad by the ingenious criminal receives direct encouragement and thus indirectly does the commission of crime itself. or would have been directly attacked for criminals should be restored to a jurisdiction competent to try and punish its unconstitutionality. In terms of the quantum cannot afford to be an isolationist a class by itself -. the treaty delay. representatives signature on an extradition treaty signifies our confidence in the capacity and the willingness of the other state to Given the foregoing.they are to escape the consequence of crime. as pointed out in Secretary of Justice v. the rules of evidence in an extradition proceeding allow travel. proceeding.[32] An extradition [proceeding] is sui generis. easier and faster international proceeding. An extradition proceeding is summary in nature while criminal proceedings involve a full-blown trial. x x x. The Requesting State Will Accord Due Process to the Accused extradition proceeding. In arrangements and the consequent certainty of return to the locus delicti criminal proceedings.

[t]he demanding government. SEC. and that petitioner is seeking his faith with our obligations under the Treaty. should it be found law or rule setting forth the procedure prior to the issuance of a warrant proper. 6. of arrest.including terrorists.These circumstances point to an ever-present. mass words. Temporary Arrest. and the other government is under be hurriedly and arbitrarily deprived of his constitutional right to liberty obligation to make the surrender.[38] The ultimate purpose of requested state despite learning that the requesting state is seeking his extradition proceedings in court is only to determine whether the return and that the crimes he is charged with are bailable -- extradition request complies with the Extradition Treaty. underlying high risk of flight. is entitled to the delivery of the accused on On the other hand.. Having Fourth. the presiding judge of The present extradition case further validates the premise that the court shall. Service of Notices. Fifth. persons to be extradited are presumed to be flight risks. Hearing.(1) Immediately upon receipt of the petition. we deliver the accused to the requesting country if the conditions petitioner pleads that such procedure may set a dangerous precedent. Issuance of Summons. if only the accused were warrant for the immediate arrest of the accused which may be served 6 . Indeed. as well as his predisposition to avoid them at all cost. summon the accused to appear and to persons sought to be extradited have a propensity to flee. On the other hand.[39] state. precedent to extradition. from into the Extradition Treaty.[45] Prior acts of herein is restored to a jurisdiction with the best claim to try that person. and (2) remaining in the that are the prerogative of that jurisdiction. First Substantive Issue: Fulfilling our obligations under the Extradition Treaty promotes comity[40]with the requesting state. and the law require it to do. ergo. that an Extradition Verily.assistance through which a person charged with or convicted of a crime willing to submit to trial in the requesting country. when it has done all that the treaty murderers and war criminals -.[41] informing the accused. In other in that those sought to be extradited -. failure to fulfill Is Respondent Entitled to Notice and Hearing Before the Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest? our obligations thereunder paints a bad image of our country before the world community. It is not respondent -. This prima facie presumption finds reinforcement in the experience[44] of the Both parties cite Section 6 of PD 1069 in support of their executive branch: nothing short of confinement can ensure that the arguments.(1) leaving the requesting state right before the part of the function of the assisting authorities to enter into questions conclusion of his indictment proceedings there. 5. a fugitive from justice. what is there to stop him. and whether eloquently speak of his aversion to the processes in the requesting the person sought is extraditable. [H]e may issue a extradition hearings would not even begin. the Philippines must without due process. Moreover. There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight the formulation of that procedure is within the discretion of the presiding judge. Respondent Jimenez argues that he should not the issue of the proper warrant. after the petition for extradition has been filed in court. Hence. as set forth in the Treaty. given sufficient opportunity. are satisfied.[43] Accordingly. has demonstrated that he has the capacity and the will to flee. He further asserts that there is as yet no specific be ready and in a position to deliver the accused. and our legislative branch ratified it. fleeing a second time? the Treaty carries the presumption that its implementation will serve the national interest. It states: accused will not flee the jurisdiction of the requested state in order to thwart their extradition to the requesting state. particularly an extradition treaty that Petitioner contends that the procedure adopted by the RTC -- hinges on him notice to escape and to avoid extradition. Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith.[42] This principle requires that arrest -. Such failure would discourage other states from entering into treaties with us. our executive branch of government voluntarily entered fled once. we are bound by pacta sunt servanda to comply in good Petition has been filed against him. He 4. answer the petition on the day and hour fixed in the order.may invoke it in future extradition cases. as soon as practicable.

the law specifies that the court sets a hearing upon finding -. (3) Annex BB. The law could not have intended the word as a against the extraditee. after having already determined therefrom that court is not expected to make an exhaustive determination to ferret out a prima facie finding did exist. with Exhibits 1 to 120 (duly authenticated the immediate arrest and temporary detention of the accused will best exhibits that constituted evidence of the crimes charged in the serve the ends of justice. a priori. uses the word immediate to qualify the arrest of the accused.[51] court is expected merely to get a good first impression -. He 1. hearing the petition and. Arrest subsequent to a hearing can no longer be the Court of the existence of probable cause to proceed with the hearing considered immediate. had the holding of a hearing at that stage been Affidavit executed on May 26.[46] receiving facts and arguments[47]from them. Statements in two volumes. respondent judge gravely abused his the true and actual situation. the law could have easily so provided. the Exhibit L Appendix of shall be promptly served each upon the accused and the attorney having Witness [excerpts] Statements Referenced in the Affidavit of Betty charge of the case. On the Basis of the Extradition Law could have determined whether such facts and circumstances existed as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that It is significant to note that Section 6 of PD 1069.a prima facie Moreover. the Statements Referenced in the Affidavit of Angela Byers and enclosed presiding judge shall hear the case or set another date for the hearing thereof. In point of fact. In connection with the matter of immediate Attached to the Petition for Extradition. our Extradition the extradition request was prima facie meritorious. Savage -. receiving the summons. the word hearing is notably absent from the Authentication among others. the Exhibit I Appendix of Witness [excerpts] after having received the summons fail to answer within the time fixed. as a means of imparting a sense of urgency and swiftness in the determination of whether a warrant of We stress that the prima facie existence of probable cause for arrest should be issued. and (5) Annex MM. he Law. Hence. In the second questioned Order. however. for issuing an arrest warrant was By using the phrase if it appears. with a Certificate of arrest. if issued. (Emphasis ours) Steward and enclosed Statements in two volumes. Exhibits 121 to 132.trial intended.sufficient to make a speedy initial determination as regards receipt of the answer or upon failure of the accused to answer after the arrest and detention of the accused. or should the accused Indictment). (4) Annex GG. Michael E.[50] mere superfluity but. the provision. immediately upon the filing of the discretion when he set the matter for hearing upon motion of petition. Hearing entails sending notices to the opposing parties. evidentiary nature. were the following: (1) Annex H. the documents sent by the US Government in support giving them time to prepare and present such facts and of [its] request for extradition of herein respondent are enough to convince arguments. Evidently. (2) Annexes H to G. he stated: issuance of the arrest warrant. This actually concluded from these supporting documents that probable qualification would be rendered nugatory by setting for hearing the cause did exist. 1999 by Mr.[49] It is evident that respondent judge could have already gotten an Does this provision sanction RTC Judge Purganans act of impression from these records adequate for him to make an initial immediately setting for hearing the issuance of a warrant of arrest? We determination of whether the accused was someone who should rule in the negative.[48] and In the instant petition. From the knowledge and the material then available to it. immediately be arrested in order to best serve the ends of justice. Hence. the Exhibit J Table of Contents for Supplemental Evidentiary Appendix with enclosed (2) The order and notice as well as a copy of the warrant of arrest. on the whole. The trial documents. the silence of the Law and the Treaty leans to the more Appendices of various exhibits that constituted evidence of the crimes 7 .any where within the Philippines if it appears to the presiding judge that charged in the Indictment. the law further conveys that already evident from the Petition itself and its supporting accuracy is not as important as speed at such early stage. the Jimenez. It also bears attorney in the Campaign Financing Task Force of the Criminal Division emphasizing at this point that extradition proceedings are summary[52]in of the US Department of Justice. Upon receipt of the answer.

judge required to go to the extent of conducting a hearing just for the a prima facie finding whether (a) they are sufficient in form and purpose of personally determining probable cause for the issuance of substance.if he so desires -. If the Even Section 2 of Article III of our Constitution. the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. the more Again. as soon as possible. affirmation -. were called for at all. and no search warrant or warrant of possibly make trial of the main case superfluous.reasonable interpretation that there is no intention to punctuate with a sufficient supporting documents upon which to make his independent hearing every little step in the entire proceedings.would the Constitution itself requires only the examination -. In doing so. validating the act of respondent judge and instituting 2. does not require a notice or a hearing before the issuance of during the prima facie determination for the issuance of a warrant of a warrant of arrest. If a different procedure To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants. as argued by petitioner. for the very purpose of both would have been defeated by the escape of the accused from the requested At most. sending to persons sought to be the existence of probable cause. They just personally review the initial extradited a notice of the request for their arrest and setting it for determination of the prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is hearing at some future date would give them ample opportunity to supported by substantial evidence. we stress that before issuing warrants of arrest. in cases of clear insufficiency of evidence on record. People[54] and in all the cases cited therein. papers.[57] In the present case. state. we deem it wise to restate his effort to negate a prima Sec. (b) they show compliance with the Extradition Treaty and a warrant of arrest. upon which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause.[56] the Court categorically stated that a judge reasonable and something not inconsistent with generally recognized was not supposed to conduct a hearing before issuing a warrant of principles of International Law. the 8 . All we required was that the judge must have Law.not the opposite -.[55] It is taken for granted that the contracting parties intend something In Webb v. nor with previous treaty obligations towards arrest: third States. and (c) the person sought is extraditable. On the Basis of the Constitution the practice of hearing the accused and his witnesses at this early stage would be discordant with the rationale for the entire system. judgment. houses.of complainantsand the witnesses they may Since this is a matter of first impression. Upon receipt of a petition for extradition and its supporting In Ho v. never was a documents. the judge must study them and make. 2. prepare and execute an escape. judges merely further examine complainants and their witnesses. There is no requirement to notify and hear the accused before the proper procedure: the issuance of warrants of arrest. what would stop him from presenting his entire plethora of defenses at this stage -. facie finding? Such a procedure could convert the determination of a and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature prima facie case into a full-blown trial of the entire proceedings and and for any purpose shall be inviolable. De Leon. or at the very least. which is invoked by accused were allowed to be heard and necessarily to present evidence Jimenez. It provides: arrest. judges merely reasonable to the less reasonable x x x . the reasonable meaning is to be preferred to the unreasonable. not the certainty of guilt of an accused. If. and particularly describing the place to be That the case under consideration is an extradition and not a searched and the persons or things to be seized. This scenario is also arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by anathema to the summary nature of extraditions. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. At his discretion. judges do not conduct a de novo hearing to determine Verily.under oath or be justified in view of respondents demonstrated predisposition to flee. therefore.[53] determine personally the probability. criminal action is not sufficient to justify the adoption of a set of procedures more protective of the accused. Neither the Treaty nor the Law could have intended that consequence. the meaning of a treaty is ambiguous. a more restrictive one -.

Supposedly. with offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua. [n]o one shall be deprived of x x x liberty x x x without due process of law. the judge must not inform Moreover. conviction. to be extradited. insofar as practicable and consistent with the summary nature of extradition Respondent Jimenez cites the foreign case Paretti[62] in arguing proceedings. extradition proceedings are separate and Respondent Mark B. the constitutional right to bail flows from the presumption or notify the potential extraditee of the pendency of the petition.[60] It follows that ends of justice in extradition cases. Jimenez maintains that this constitutional distinct from the trial for the offenses for which he is charged. be bailable by sufficient sureties. the second sentence in Art. It cannot be conviction. shall also apply according to Section 9 of PD 1069. To stress. the constitutional provision on bail quoted above. the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. That the offenses for which Jimenez is sought to be extradited are bailable in the United States is not an argument to grant him one in the present case. lest the of innocence in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to latter be given the opportunity to escape and frustrate the the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal. including those sought apply for bail before the courts trying the criminal cases against him. except those charged with offenses punishable the constitutional provision on bail merely emphasizes the right to bail by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. answer the petition and to appear at scheduled summary hearings. the constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a case like extradition. in We agree with petitioner. the foregoing procedure will best serve the unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt. his detention prior to the conclusion of subject of an extradition request and arrest warrant. Excessive bail shall not be required. Section 13 of the Constitution. We iterate the familiar doctrine that the essence of due 9 . All persons. when evidence of guilt is strong. He should provision secures the right to bail of all persons. In our opinion. Sec. Prior to the issuance of the warrant.[61] Hence. As suggested by the use of the word spite of this study and examination. then the magistrate must immediately issue a warrant for laws. petitioner claims that there is no provision in the Philippine Constitution granting the right to bail to a person who is the Contrary to his contention. applies only when a person On the other hand. He also alleges the relevance to the present case of No Violation of Due Process Section 4[59] of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court which. the extradition proceedings does not amount to a violation of his right to due process. where the presumption of innocence is not at issue. or be released on recognizance taken to mean that the right is available even in extradition proceedings as may be provided by law. because extradition the arrest of the extraditee. no prima facie finding[58] is possible. It does not apply to extradition proceedings. the petition may be dismissed at the discretion of the judge. It must be noted that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus finds application Article III. that. as well as Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. shall. before in criminal proceedings for the aforementioned offenses. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when that are not criminal in nature. On the other hand. if the presence of a prima facie case is has been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal determined. III. who is at the same time summoned to courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal. 13.judge may require the submission of further documentation or may Extradition Different from Ordinary Criminal Proceedings personally examine the affiants and witnesses of the petitioner. proceedings. the only exceptions are the ones charged not before the extradition court. If. is worded as follows: only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. constitutionally. The provision in the Constitution stating that the right to bail shall Second Substantive Issue: not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is Is Respondent Entitled to Bail? suspended does not detract from the rule that the constitutional right to bail is available only in criminal proceedings.

[64] Where the circumstances -. Too. Indeed.such as those present in an overprotection or excessively liberal treatment. instead of taking it. humanitarian and do not exist in a the Constitution. for Extradition. Hence. the due process rights accorded to individuals compelling circumstances[71] including. (2) the extradition detention pending the resolution of extradition proceedings would fall judges independent prima facie determination that his arrest will best into place with the emphasis of the Extradition Law on the summary serve the ends of justice before the issuance of a warrant for his arrest. those must be carefully balanced against exigent and palpable government cited by the highest court in the requesting state when it grants interests.process is the opportunity to be heard[63] but. he ran believe that the right to due process is broad enough to include the away. we find no arbitrariness. the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community in the suppression of crime. the right to due process In this light. we cannot allow our country to be a haven for fugitives. adaptable to every situation calling for its for it.[69] Furthermore. His abuse of discretion[68]and tyranny. persons sought to be extradition case -. choose to run and hide. Butbecause he left the jurisdiction of the requesting state The rule. cowards and weaklings who. in the immediate deprivation of his liberty prior to his being The denial of bail as a matter of course in extradition cases falls heard.[65] In the present case. we that opportunity in the requesting state. as well as the power to promulgate invocation of due process now has thus become hollow. would it be proper and just for the government to extends to the life. Likewise. nature of extradition cases and the need for their speedy disposition. at the same time.[70] Respondent Jimenez his personal liberty in the span of time that it takes Accordingly and to best serve the ends of justice. a subsequent opportunity to be heard is extradited are able to evade arrest or escape from our custody. Indeed. either. when the extradition court hears the Petition expressly guaranteeing the right to bail in extradition proceedings. it would not be good policy out that the doctrine does not always call for a prioropportunity to be to increase the risk of violating our treaty obligations if. In the enough. bail may be applied for and granted as shunned pales against the governments interest in fulfilling its an exception. to apply for bail as an exception to the no-initial-bail rule. it was hindered from cases. as a matter of reciprocity. after a potential extraditee has been arrested or placed deprivation of liberty without the due process that he had previously under the custody of the law. proceedings had already been conducted in that country. yet. point their actions. the law or the treaty -- to be heard subsequently. respondent will be given full opportunity absence of any provision -. [c]onstitutional liberties community. Contrary to the contention of Jimenez. It is also worth noting that before the US government requested the Exceptions to the No Bail Rule extradition of respondent. grant of basic fairness to extraditees. since this ensured by (1) the DOJs filing in court the Petition with its supporting practice would encourage the accused to voluntarily surrender to the documents after a determination that the extradition request meets the requesting state to cut short their detention here. their requirements of the law and the relevant treaty. through heard. That his arrest and detention will not be arbitrary is sufficiently into place with and gives life to Article 14[67] of the Treaty. we believe and to resolve the Petition for Extradition? His supposed immediate so hold that. as a general rule. the judiciary has the constitutional duty to curb grave continuing with the due processes prescribed under its laws. only upon a clear and convincing showing (1) that. and (2) that there exist special. once Extradition Treaty obligations and in cooperating with the world granted bail. there is no violation of his right to due process adopting the practice of not granting them bail. liberty or property of every person.[66] provisional liberty in extradition cases therein. Hence. once he is under the courts custody. we repeat. would and fundamental fairness. However. He already had rules to protect and enforce constitutional rights. It is dynamic and increase the risk of violating its treaty obligations in order to accord resilient. is that bail is not a matter of right in extradition before those proceedings could be completed. be a step towards deterring fugitives from coming to the Philippines to hide from or evade their prosecutors. instead of facing the consequences of 10 . and (3) his opportunity.

the issue before us boils down to a question of constitutional equal protection. When the voters of his district elected the accused-appellant to Congress. The Court realizes that extradition is basically an executive. while this Court is ever protective of the imposed by the mandate of the people are multifarious. they do so knowing public welfare may justify exercise of government authority to regulate even that at any time. This simply means that all persons similarly situated shall 11 .] wittingly or otherwise. To give a more drastic illustration. therefore. Jalosjos. The accused-appellant is only one of 250 members of the House Along this line. of Government that has to be addressed. A police officer must he claims that his detention will disenfranchise his Manila district of maintain peace and order.We have carefully examined physical absence of one or a few of its members. Does being an elective official result in a substantial distinction that allows responsibility arising from the presidential power to conduct foreign different treatment? Is being a Congressman a substantial differentiation relations. An elected as a member of the House of Representatives. The accused- sporting idea of fair play. not a judicial. if thereby certain groups may plausibly assert that their interests are disregarded. In short. if voters elect a person with full The Court cannot validate badges of inequality. A doctor with unique While his extradition was pending. In its barest concept. and be treated alike both in rights enjoyed and responsibilities imposed. They did so with the knowledge that he could achieve only such legislative results which he could accomplish within the confines of prison. Neither partiality nor prejudice shall be displayed. elective governor has to serve provincial constituents. which is not normally a judicial persons validly confined under law? prerogative. not to mention the 24 members of the Senate. The importance of a 1. Alleged Disenfranchisement function depends on the need for its exercise. find that election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement. it also recognizes the limits of its own appellant asserts that the duty to legislate ranks highest in the hierarchy of prerogatives and the need to fulfill international obligations. On that basis. Depending on the exigency these circumstances and shall now discuss them. precision and emphatic forcefulness. Since this exception has no express or specific statutory basis. Jimenez contends that there are special of Representatives. ruled thus: A strict scrutiny of classifications is essential lest[. We are not persuaded. The duties or compromised. The necessities imposed by knowledge that he is suffering from a terminal illness. The duty of a mother to nurse her infant is most compelling under the law of nature. The since it is derived essentially from general principles of justice and organs of government may not show any undue favoritism or hostility to any fairness. We. Never has the call of a particular duty lifted a 600. Congress continues to function well in the request for provisional release on bail. In People v. The functions and duties of the office are not substantial distinctions which lift him from the The Constitution guarantees: x x x nor shall any person be denied the equal class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of protection of laws. the applicant bears the burden of proving the above two-tiered person. Hence. he may no longer serve his full term in office. charged circumstances that are compelling enough for the Court to grant his with the duties of legislation.[72] the prisoner into a different classification from those others who are validly Court has already debunked the disenfranchisement argument when it restrained by law. so that the vital international The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers and bilateral interests of our country will not be unreasonably impeded has never been an excuse to free a person validly [from] prison. Respondent Jimenez was skills has the duty to save the lives of those with a particular affliction. it partakes of the nature of police which removes the accused-appellant as a prisoner from the same class as all assistance amongst states. insidious discriminations are made in favor of or against groups or types of they did so with full awareness of the limitations on his freedom of individuals. action. In the ultimate analysis. any intrusion by the courts into the exercise of this power should be characterized by caution. government. the President or the Supreme Court can also be deemed the highest for that particular duty.000 residents. requirement with clarity.

but also private respondents prayer for temporary We are not overruling the possibility that petitioner may. Hence. merely anticipatory and academic. yet. won a congressional seat in Manila. Not a Flight Risk? was Mr. not to determine guilt or exhaustively private respondents claim to bail. Premises considered evidence on the application for bail. we are constrained to rule against his claim accordance with the guidelines in this Decision. a premium to delay by considering it as a special circumstance for the procedure not normally observed in the great majority of cases in this grant of bail would be tantamount to giving him the power to grant bail Tribunal. However. That he has not yet fled from the law and apply to all those belonging to the same class. that. which may be granted in and in line with Jalosjos. True. They are resorted to particular. Additionally. The parties -. any further discussion of this point would be separately filed by the parties. after the Memos had been submitted. we pendency of the case.Again we are not convinced. he has not fled the country. it was already of public knowledge In any event. It would also encourage him to stretch out and unreasonably .entitled Manifestations by both parties and Counter-Manifestation by private respondent which the main topic 3. the lengthy Memoranda and the Position Papers of both all the more reason would the grant of bail not be justified. To support this A remand would mean that this long. It must be noted that even before private respondent ran for and upon the resolution of the Petition for Extradition. Thereafter required by the RTC were memoranda on the arrest. Yet. In the present case. intended to address issues relevant RTC set for hearing not only petitioners application for an arrest to the constitutional rights available to the accused in a criminal action. this pleadings and verbal propositions. he has not actually fled evidentiary matters. as he hears the footsteps of the requesting 12 .movement. that his election to public office is by itself a compelling reason to grant him that extradition cases are summary in nature. in bad liberty. 2. is totally unnecessary. additional pleadings -. tedious process would be claim. as a rule.have been given more than sufficient merely to determine whether the extradition petition and its annexes opportunity both by the trial court and this Court to discuss fully and conform to the Extradition Treaty. Be it noted. in fact. Jimenezs plea for bail. The trial court would again hear factual and 1999. both of which were not at issue here. it would be unfair to confine him during the The proposal to remand this case to the extradition court. Respondent Jimenez -. including his denied.particularly the potential extraditee -. This we cannot allow. the Comment. it is settled that bail may be applied for and granted that the United States was requesting his extradition. Moreover.[73] Philippines cannot be taken to mean that he will stand his ground and still be within reach of our government if and when it matters. even he realizes that there is absolutely no forward to its conclusion. This is quite another matter that is then position papers on the application for bail. As already stated. Thus. with the Reply. private respondent has not asked fact cannot be taken to mean that he will not flee as the process moves for a remand. however. Neither is it. This Court has meticulously pored over the Petition. his by the trial court at anytime after the applicant has been taken into constituents were or should have been prepared for the consequences custody and prior to judgment. Anticipated Delay Brief Refutation of Dissents Respondent Jimenez further contends that because the extradition proceedings are lengthy. it has patiently heard them in Oral Arguments. warrant. unduly delay the proceedings. We must emphasize believe. faith. the extradition court may continue hearing detention pending the final resolution of the case. Lawful arrest and confinement are germane to the purposes of the government inching closer and closer. the innocence. that is. he stresses that he learned of the extradition request in June repeated in its entirety. Giving parties. the parties - to himself. it is a cop-out. Evidently. Jimenez further claims that he is not a flight risk. if the delay is due to maneuverings of respondent.have bombarded this Court with delay the extradition proceedings even more. even after bail has been previously of the extradition case against their representative. in all his voluminous during the preliminary stages of the request for his extradition.

The magistrate has discretion to require the Then. there is also the suggestion that this Court is allegedly petitioner to submit further documentation. potential extraditees may apply for bail. a bulwark of democracy and the conscience of willingness of the latter to grant basic rights to the accused in the society. and (b) there exist special. the inadequacy lies not in 3. Consequently. Thus.has exhaustively deliberated and carefully presumption is that the person would escape again if given the passed upon all relevant questions in this case. whether the request expressed in the petition. The grounds used by the highest court in the requesting As we draw to a close. It is more akin. Indeed. Separate and Dissenting Opinions written by the learned jurisdiction of the requesting state. it lies in criminal case in which guilt or innocence is shown by this Decision and the spirited or has escaped detention or jumped bail. Immediately upon receipt of the petition for extradition and its be summary in character. to a courts request to police authorities for the arrest of the accused who is at large In short. the judge shall make a prima facie finding speed. his legal arguments. If convinced that a prima facie case exists. 2. serve any useful purpose. 13 . and whether the person sought is extraditable. whether it decision on the merits. Indeed. 5. Jimenez. extradition proceedings are not equivalent to a the factual presentation of Mr. accused are necessarily available.Remanding the case will not solve this utter lack of an extradition case is not one in which the constitutional rights of the persuasion and strength in his legal reasoning. A subsequent opportunity is sufficient assist the requesting state in bringing the accused -. fundamental fairness that is compatible with the summary nature of extradition. the reasonable prima facie justices themselves -. a judicial system of its treaty partner. What is needed is a firm whether the petition is sufficient in form and substance. This Court will always remain a protector of human rights. potential extraditees. it is subject to judicial discretion in the context of the 1. the believe that this charge is not only baseless. so that the criminal process the petition and the answer is the full chance to be heard and to enjoy may proceed therein. available during the hearings on has illegally escaped -. By entering into an extradition treaty. but also unfair.[74] which our Extradition Law requires to 4. as well as in the ability and the bastion of liberty. Due process does not always call for person sought is extraditable. under the principle ten points: of reciprocity as a special circumstance. the Philippines is deemed to have reposed its trust in the reliability or soundness of the legal and 7. or to personally examine the disregarding basic freedoms when a case is one of extradition. they have Summation the burden of showing that (a) there is no flight risk and no danger to the community. a remand will not opportunity. Having once escaped the Concurring. bail is not a matter of right. not a circuitous cop-out. humanitarian or compelling circumstances. We affiants or witnesses.need to rehear factual matters. Rather. it will only further delay these already very delayed proceedings.back to its territory. After being taken into custody. not unnecessary and convoluted delay. complies with the Extradition Treaty and Law. and whether the to fundamental fairness. this Court -.or the fugitive who due to the flight risk involved. But it is also well aware of the limitations of its authority and of pending criminal case therein. it is now time to summarize and stress these state for the grant of bail therein may be considered. Suffice it judge immediately issues a warrant for the arrest of the potential to say that. supported by its annexes and the evidence that may be adduced during the hearing of the 6. In extradition cases. By nature then. The ultimate purpose of extradition proceedings is to determine peculiar facts of each case. this Decision has taken special extraditee and summons him or her to answer and to appear at cognizance of the rights to due process and fundamental fairness of scheduled hearings on the petition. complies with the Extradition Treaty and Law. What we need now is prudent and deliberate supporting documents. Potential extraditees are entitled to the rights to due process and petition. in its length and breath. The proceedings are intended merely to a prior opportunity to be heard. Since the applicants have a history of absconding. if at all.

the need for respect for the prerogatives of the other co-equal and co. while the challenged Order dated July 3. Davide. extradition proceedings should be conducted with all deliberate speed to determine compliance with the Extradition Treaty and Law. 9. our country should not be converted into a dubious haven where fugitives and escapees can unreasonably delay. J. JJ. J. SO ORDERED. not a Ynares-Santiago. J.. mummify. We realize that extradition is essentially an executive. with all deliberate speed pursuant to the spirit and the letter of our Extradition Treaty with the United States as well as our Extradition Law.. The bail bond posted by private respondent is CANCELLED.. concur in the separate opinion of Justice Puno.. responsibility arising out of the presidential power to conduct Carpio. foreign relations and to implement treaties. Austria-Martinez. and Callejo. see Separate Opinion. WHEREFORE. J. Sr. Bellosillo. Puno.. 2001 is hereby declared NULL and VOID. C. Ynares-Santiago. independent organs of government. Mendoza. joins in the concurring opinion of Justice Carpio. Corona. 2001 is SET ASIDE insofar as it granted bail to Respondent Mark Jimenez.. On the other hand. delays and technicalities that may negate t hat purpose. and. J. the Petition is GRANTED.J. checkmate and defeat the quest for bilateral justice and international cooperation. concur. Vitug. to avoid the legalistic contortions. courts merely perform oversight functions and exercise review authority to prevent or excise grave abuse and tyranny. mock. Jr. frustrate. join in the Separate Opinion of Justice 8. see Separate Opinion. They should not allow contortions. The Regional Trial Court of Manila is directed to conduct the extradition proceedings before it.. No costs... At bottom. 14 . Quisumbing. judicial. lest these summary extradition proceedings become not only inutile but also sources of international embarrassment due to our inability to comply in good faith with a treaty partners simple request to return a fugitive. Sandoval-Gutierrez. while safeguarding basic individual rights. see Dissenting Opinion. J. see concurring Opinion.. J. 10. Thus.. Worse. delays and over-due process every little step of the way. see Dissenting Opinion. and Carpio-Morales. the Executive Department of government has broad discretion in its duty and power of implementation. The assailed RTC Order dated May 23.

He also faces seven (7) counts of the offense of conspiracy to defraud. 2002 denying the motion to vacate application for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or writ of habeas the said Order of December 20. 153675 April 19. 140520. That same day. represented by the Philippine Department of Justice (DOJ). 1999. OLALIA. this Court rendered a Decision granting the On January 30. private respondent. These are: (1) the Order dated December 20. The facts are: On December 18. 1999. 1997. Branch 19 an application for the provisional arrest of private SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ. Manila issued an Order the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. to post bail. 2001 filed by the Government of corpus questioning the validity of the Order of Arrest. the DOJ received from the Hong Kong MUÑOZ. Petitioner. 2000. the Republic of the Philippines and the then petition of the DOJ and sustaining the validity of the Order of Arrest British Crown Colony of Hong Kong signed an "Agreement for the against private respondent. the RTC. 1999. Republic of the Philippines On July 1. vs. If convicted.) issued in Civil Case No. Manila arrested and detained him. praying that the Decision of the Court of Appeals be reversed. Cap. 2001. warrants of REGION. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. review on certiorari. 201 of Hong Kong. and JUAN ANTONIO On September 13. 1999. (presided by respondent Judge Felixberto T. Department of Justice a request for the provisional arrest of private respondent. JR. the DOJ filed with this Court a petition for extraditee. No. Appeals a petition for certiorari. 1999. 1997. filed with the RTC of Manila. J. the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision alleges that both Orders were issued by respondent judge with grave declaring the Order of Arrest void. docketed as G. 1997 and October 25. Hong Kong reverted back to the People’s Republic of SUPREME COURT China and became the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Respondents. Branch 8. as amended. Manila Private respondent Muñoz was charged before the Hong Kong Court EN BANC with three (3) counts of the offense of "accepting an advantage as agent. abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as there is no provision in the Constitution granting bail to a potential On November 12. HON. On October 14. seeking to nullify the of Arrest against private respondent. FELIXBERTO T. 1999. private respondent filed with the Court of 2001 allowing Juan Antonio Muñoz. Branch 19." It took effect on June on April 10. 15 . The DOJ then forwarded the request to the National DECISION Bureau of Investigation (NBI) which. The petition On November 9.R. Jr. No. he faces a jail term of Justice. penalized by the common law of GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE Hong Kong. The Decision became final and executory Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons. petitioner." in violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Bribery G. 20. 99-95773. On August 23.R. prohibition and mandamus with and (2) the Order dated April 10. in turn. the NBI agents two Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). For our resolution is the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of On September 23. 1995.: respondent. represented by the Philippine Department of arrest were issued against him. 2007 Ordinance. seven (7) to fourteen (14) years for each charge. Olalia.

Petitioner alleged that the trial court reconsideration of the Order denying his application for bail. and if they further desire. The petition for bail is granted subject to the following conditions: In his comment on the petition. Bail is set at Php750. 2001 jurisdiction in admitting private respondent to bail. but it was denied by respondent judge in his Order Branch 8 presided by respondent judge. raffled off to Branch 10. Jr. On October 22. 1999. Judge Bernardo. private respondent filed a motion for Hence. holding that there is no Philippine noted therein accordingly. at for the extradition of private respondent. thus: undertaking. before this Court even in extradition proceeding. Nonetheless. docketed as Civil Case No. issues raised in these proceedings and will at all times hold himself amenable to orders and processes of this Court. and that extradition is a harsh process accused hereby undertakes that he will appear and answer the resulting in a prolonged deprivation of one’s liberty. 2002. 99-95733. 99-95733. petitioner filed an urgent motion to vacate the further hearing Civil Case No. the right being limited solely to criminal In conclusion.00 in cash with the condition that prospective extraditee. that there is nothing allowing private respondent to post bail." SO ORDERED.Meanwhile. with the condition that if the accused flees from his undertaking. will Section 13. Excessive bail shall not be required. The Department of Justice is given immediate notice and impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is discretion of filing its own motion for hold departure order suspended. presided by Judge Ricardo manifest before this Court to require that all the assets of Bernardo. 2001. private respondent maintained that the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of Rights extends to a 1. Accused is required to report to the government prosecutors Special Administrative Region filed with the RTC of Manila a petition handling this case or if they so desire to the nearest office. erosion of civil liberties. in the same accused. and Jurisprudence on extradition is but in its infancy in this jurisdiction. 2001. On October 30. It was then raffled off to above Order. before 2. Sec. except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong.. 2001. any time and day of the week. case. Accused must surrender his valid passport to this Court. said assets be forfeited in favor of the After hearing. issued an government and that the corresponding lien/annotation be Order denying the petition for bail. real and personal. Judge Bernardo. conviction. this is not the first time that this Court has an occasion 16 . the instant petition. Jr. the cash bond will be forfeited in favor of the government. be filed with this Court soonest. dated April 10. this Court will not contribute to accused’s further proceedings. or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. private respondent filed. thus: in the Constitution or statutory law providing that a potential extraditee has a right to bail. All persons. Jr.a petition for bail which was opposed by petitioner.000. law granting bail in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high "flight risk. Article III of the Constitution provides that the right to bail further appear for judgment. inhibited himself from On December 21. be bailable by sufficient sureties. 2001. 13. or on October 8. The right to bail shall not be 3. If accused fails in this shall not be impaired. For his part. shall. as early as November 22. petitioner Hong Kong 4. This was committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of granted by respondent judge in an Order dated December 20.

Thus. The not apply to extradition proceedings because extradition courts do not vulnerable doctrine that the subjects of international law are limited render judgments of conviction or acquittal. the second sentence in the constitutional community. respondent’s case. Slowly. Panganiban. on December 10. It follows that the constitutional provision on bail will not Yugoslavia. in Mejoff v. It must be noted that which the right to life. where the presumption of innocence is is now a valid subject of international law. customarily binding upon the members of the international Constitution). However." the The modern trend in public international law is the primacy constitutional provision on bail quoted above. 18. not at issue. a. 6. in the 20th century. While not a treaty. (3) the then Associate Justice Artemio V. in provision on bail merely emphasizes the right to bail in criminal granting bail to a prospective deportee. crimes against peace. On a more positive note. on thus: one hand.2 this Court. placed on the worth of the individual person and the sanctity of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. this Court cannot ignore the following trends in international law: (1) the growing importance of the individual In Government of United States of America v. and the law on extradition. the recognition that the individual person may arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. Art. both international The provision in the Constitution stating that the "right to bail shall not organizations and states gave recognition and importance to human be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is rights. as well as Section 4. the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after World Moreover. Serbian leaders have been persecuted for Enage. the constitutional right to bail "flows from the presumption War II resulted in the unprecedented spectacle of individual of innocence in favor of every accused who should not be subjected defendants for acts characterized as violations of the laws of war. x x x. Mario Batacan Crespo. Hon. under unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt" (De la Camara v. It is "available only in criminal proceedings. VIII. (2) the higher value now being Jimenez. the principles application "only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses contained in the said Declaration are now recognized as inherent in or directly connected with invasion" (Sec. later Chief Justice. Presiding Judge. liberty and all the other fundamental rights of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus finds every person were proclaimed. It cannot be taken to Constitution. the above ruling applies squarely to private granted bail. These significant events show that the individual person apply to a case like extradition. and (4) the duty of this Court extradition proceedings. corresponding duty of countries to observe these universal human held that the constitutional provision on bail does not apply to rights in fulfilling their treaty obligations. person in public international law who. has Purganan. September 17. Hence. gradually attained global recognition. In 1966." to balance the rights of the individual under our fundamental law. Branch 42. Thus. speaking through given to human rights in the international sphere. applies only when a person has been human rights. the UN General Assembly also adopted are not criminal in nature. and crimes against humanity. only to states was dramatically eroded towards the second half of the past century.1 this Court. 41 SCRA 1. RTC of Manila. the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which the Philippines signed and ratified. held that under the proceedings for the aforementioned offenses. It does properly be a subject of international law is now taking root. Director of Prisons. on the other. to the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal. the Nuremberg principle. 1948. also after World War II. war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the former later CJ). the United Nations General suspended" does not detract from the rule that the constitutional right Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in to bail is available only in criminal proceedings. and Mark B. Guillermo G. per Fernando.a. Fundamental among the rights 17 .k. For one. resolve the question of whether a prospective extraditee may be At first glance. 1971.3the principles set forth in that Declaration are part of mean that the right is available even in extradition proceedings that the law of the land. As suggested by the use of the word "conviction. J..

) No. the Philippines should see to it that the right to as deportation and quarantine. liberty. Philippine jurisprudence Extradition Law) defines "extradition" as "the removal of an accused has not limited the exercise of the right to bail to criminal from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of proceedings only. to limit bail to criminal proceedings would be to close Section 2(a) of Presidential Decree (P. we see no justification why which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty.7 this Court ruled that foreign nationals against whom no responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of every person to formal criminal charges have been filed may be released on bail liberty and due process. a reexamination of this Court’s ruling in Purganan is in order. Go-Sioco5 is illustrative. committed to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as "is the machinery of criminal law. along with the other members of the family of deportation is not a criminal proceeding. taking into criminal law of the requesting state or government. This Court has admitted to bail persons who foreign authorities to enable the requesting state or government to are not involved in criminal proceedings.9 Even if the potential extraditee is a 18 . Respondents in administrative proceedings. in light of the various international treaties extradition cases. Likewise." The Philippines. This commitment is was applied to deportation proceedings." cognizance the obligation of the Philippines under international conventions to uphold human rights. justified. the Philippine authorities are under obligation to make available to every person under detention such remedies If bail can be granted in deportation cases.4 have likewise been detained. to enable it to decide the Court in Mejoff relied upon the Universal declaration of Human without delay on the legality of the detention and order their release if Rights in sustaining the detainee’s right to bail. liberty of every individual is not impaired." Thus." and that while The Philippines. and due noting that the prospective deportee had committed no crime. a convicted of a crime within its territorial jurisdiction. however. we note that the exercise of the State’s power to deprive of the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and protection an individual of his liberty is not necessarily limited to criminal of human rights. include the right to be admitted to bail. Thus. 1069 (The Philippine our eyes to our jurisprudential history. Second. the process. therefore. Under these treaties. As previously stated. there is no reason why it cannot be invoked in proceedings. created by treaty. In fact. After all. After not a criminal proceeding. some of the machinery used nations. has the Immigration. Clearly.D.enshrined therein are the rights of every person to life. to life and liberty. the presumption lies in favor of proceedings. ensuring that those detained or arrested can pending the finality of an order of deportation. While this Court considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to in Purganan limited the exercise of the right to bail to criminal deportation cases. Director of Prisons6 and Chirskoff v. Court opined that "To refuse him bail is to treat him as a person who has committed the most serious crime known to law. to demand the surrender of one accused or The 1909 case of US v.8 It is certificate of registration was granted bail pending his appeal. participate in the proceedings before a court. bail has been hold him in connection with any criminal investigation directed against allowed in this jurisdiction to persons in detention during the him or the execution of a penalty imposed on him under the penal or pendency of administrative proceedings. Article II of our Constitution which provides: "The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees In Mejoff v. the right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations First. Commission of full respect for human rights. These remedies it should not also be allowed in extradition cases. and the correlative Chinese facing deportation for failure to secure the necessary duty of the other state to surrender him to the demanding state. In this case. both are administrative proceedings where giving recognition and protection to human rights. particularly the right the innocence or guilt of the person detained is not in issue. Extradition has thus been characterized as the right of a foreign power. such human liberty. the provisions relating to bail value the worth and dignity of every person. In other words. enshrined in Section II.

11 It is not a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the potential extraditee. A potential extraditee may Philippines is a party. Puno." and that release from provisional arrest "shall not defeats the purpose of extradition. but also by international conventions. there is no provision prohibiting him or her from extradition. and due process. pending receipt of the request for comply with these obligations is a setback in our foreign relations and extradition." diminish a potential extraditee’s rights to life. to which the bears all earmarks of a criminal process. In fact. it is from this major premise that the he fled. required in granting or denying bail can neither be the proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the standard of proof of Records show that private respondent was arrested on September 23. While administrative in 1999. Constitution.15 Given the purpose of extradition is also "the machinery of criminal foregoing. convicted of a crime and to secure his return to the state from which As Purganancorrectly points out. he had been cases cannot likewise apply given the object of extradition law which detained for over two (2) years without having been convicted of is to prevent the prospective extraditee from fleeing our jurisdiction. when the character.10 It is sui generis. the standard of due character. Failure to arrest of the accused. 2001. not only by our Obviously. In the latter. deprive an extraditee be subjected to arrest. In any crime. tracing its existence wholly to treaty filing a motion for bail. to a prolonged restraint of liberty. However. while ostensibly administrative. We should not.criminal. According to him." We further note that Section 20 allows the Philippines honor its obligations under the Extradition Treaty it entered requesting state "in case of urgency" to ask for the "provisional into with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. proposed that a new standard which he this prolonged deprivation of liberty which prompted the extradition termed "clear and convincing evidence" should be used in court to grant him bail. preponderance of evidence in civil cases. the standard of proof be reasonable. for the purpose of trial or punishment. this standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than 19 . and remained incarcerated until December 20. liberty. a right to due process under the Constitution. the standard of substantial evidence used in administrative trial court ordered his admission to bail. Bearing in mind the purpose of extradition proceedings. The applicable standard of due process. the Philippines should extradition is received subsequently. By any standard. proceedings. such an extended period of detention is his Separate Opinion in Purganan. Extradition Law) which mandates the "immediate arrest and temporary detention of the accused" if such "will best serve the The time-honored principle of pacta sunt servanda demands that the interest of justice. an extradition proceeding.13 Its object is to prevent the escape of a person accused or process is premised on the presumption of innocence of the accused. granting bail in extradition cases. but one that is merely administrative in same as that in criminal proceedings. This is based on the potential extraditee and (b) the means employed to attain the assumption that such extraditee is a fugitive from justice. No. where these rights are guaranteed. it is characterized by issuance of the arrest warrant and the "temporary detention" is the the following: (a) it entails a deprivation of liberty on the part of the possibility of flight of the potential extraditee. should not be the blown civil action. it does not necessarily prejudice re-arrest and extradition of the accused if a request for mean that in keeping with its treaty obligations.D." This is shown by Section 6 of P. 1069 (The Philippine showing that he or she is not a flight risk and should be granted bail. More so. now Chief a serious deprivation of his fundamental right to liberty. however. "Temporary detention" may be a necessary step in the process of extradition. for it is While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an not punishment for a crime. In other words. it was Justice Reynato S. and of his right to apply for bail. the premise behind the But while extradition is not a criminal proceeding.12 Nor is it a full. then Associate Justice. but the length of time of the detention should An extradition proceeding being sui generis. obligations between different nations. however. even though such punishment may follow extraditee. therefore.14 ancillary presumption in favor of admitting to bail arises. provided that a certain standard for the forced to transfer to the demanding state following the grant is satisfactorily met. an extradition proceeding is not by its nature criminal. the prospective extraditee thus bears the onus probandi of law.

and thereafter. Consequently. ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice WE CONCUR: 20 .preponderance of evidence. This case is REMANDED to the trial court to determine whether private respondent is entitled to bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence. conduct the extradition proceedings with dispatch. the trial court should order the cancellation of his bail bond and his immediate detention. this case should be remanded to the trial court to determine whether private respondent may be granted bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence. The potential extraditee must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court. In this case." If not." WHEREFORE. SO ORDERED. there is no showing that private respondent presented evidence to show that he is not a flight risk. we DISMISS the petition.