Hongkong vs.
Olalia (2007)
 1995 – RP and HK signed an “Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and
Convicted Persons”
 1997 - Agreement took effect
Case of Muñoz
 Charged with the ff. offenses:
 3 counts of the offense of “accepting an advantage as agent” in
violation of Sec 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO)
 7 counts of the offense of conspiracy to defraud
 1997 & 1999 – warrants of arrest were issued
 1999 – DOJ received from the HK DOJ a request for the provisional arrest
of the respondent
 NBI then filed with the RTC an application for the provisional arrest of
Muñoz
 RTC issued an Order of Arrest. NBI agents arrested and detained him.
 1999 – CA declared the Order of Arrest void
 2000 - SC sustained the validity of the arrest
Petition for Extradition
 2001 - HK Special Administrative Region filed with the RTC Manila a
petition for extradition
 Muñoz filed a Petition for Bail
 RTC Judge denied the petition for bail, holding that there is no Philippine
law granting bail in extradition cases and that Muñoz is a high “flight” risk
 On MR, Judge Olalia granted Muñoz’ petition, holding that the court would
not contribute to accused’s further erosion of civil liberties. The ff. were the
conditions:
i. Appearance at the court
ii. Surrender his valid passport
iii. DOJ to issue a hold-departure order at its discretion
iv. All assets of the accused to be filed with the Court
Proceeding before the SC
 HK filed a petition under Rule 65, contending that there is nothing in the
Constitution or statutory law providing that a potential extradite has a right
to bail
 Munñoz – the right to bail extends to a prospective extradite; and that
extradition is a harsh process resulting in a prolonged deprivation of one’s
liberty
Issue: W/N a prospective extradite may be granted bail
Rulings of the SC
Applicable laws/jurisprudence:
 Art 3, Sec. 13, Constitution: The right to bail shall not be impaired
 US vs. Purganan: The word “conviction” applies only when a person has
been arrested and detained for violation of Phil. criminal laws. It does not
apply to extradition proceedings because extradition courts do not render
judgments of conviction or acquittal.
Trends in the international law:
1. The growing importance of the individual person in public IL
2. The higher value now being given to human rights in the international
sphere
3. The corresponding duty of countries to observe these universal human
rights in fulfilling their treaty obligations
4. The duty of the Court to balance the rights of the individual under our
fundamental law and the law on extradition
 The primacy placed on the worth of the individual person and the
sanctity of human rights.
 The recognition that the individual person may properly be a subject of
international law
Events leading to the recognition that an individual is a valid subject
of international law:
 Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after WWII
 Nuremberg principle – Serbian leaders have been persecuted for war
crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the former Yugoslavia
 1948 – UN GA adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
 The principles in the Declaration are already recognized as customarily
binding upon the members of the international community.
 Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons: The principles set forth in the Declaration
are part of the law of the land.
 1966 – UN GA adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. It enshrines the right of every person to life, liberty, and due
process.
The principles as part of the law of the land in the Phils.
 Art 2, Sec. 2, Constitution: The State values the dignity of every human
person and guarantees full respect for human rights.
 Reexamination of the Purganan case:
1. The exercise of the State’s power to deprive an individual of his liberty
is not necessarily limited to criminal proceedings.
2. Bail has been allowed to persons in detention during the pendency of
administrative proceedings, taking into cognizance the obligation of the
Philippines under international conventions to uphold human rights.
 If bail can be granted in deportation cases, we see no justification why it
should not also be allowed in extradition cases. Considering that the
UNDHR applies to deportation cases, there is no reason why it cannot be
invoked in extradition cases. Both are administrative proceedings where the
innocence or guilt of the person detained is not in issue.
 Under treaty obligations, the presumption lies in favor of human liberty.
PD No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law)
 Extradition – the removal of an accused from the Philippines with the
object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the
requesting state or government to hold him in connection with any criminal
 investigation directed against him or the execution of a penalty imposed on
him under the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or government.
 The right of a foreign power to demand the surrender of one accused or
convicted of a crime within its territorial jurisdiction, and the correlative
duty of the other state to surrender him to the demanding state.
 It is not by its nature criminal, for it is not a punishment for a crime.
 It is sui generis; it is derived from treaties.
 It is not a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the potential
extraditee. It is merely administrative in character.
 Its object is to prevent the escape of a person accused or convicted of a
crime and to secure his return to the state from which he fled, for the
purpose of trial or punishment.
a. It entails deprivation of liberty
b. The means employed is the machinery of criminal law.
- Sec. 6, PD 1069 mandates the “immediate arrest and temporary
detention of the accused if such will best serve the interest of justice.”
- Sec. 20, PD 1069 allows the requesting state in case of urgency to ask
for the provisional arrest of the accused, pending receipt of the request
for extradition.
Application to Muñoz
 Detained for over 2 years without having been convicted of any crime
 Such an extended period of detention is a serious deprivation of his
fundamental right to liberty
 The premise behind the issuance of the arrest warrant and the “temporary
detention” is the possibility of flight of the potential extradite. The
prospective extradite thus bears the onus probandi of showing that he or
she is not a flight risk and should be granted bail.
Pacta Sunt Servanda
 It demands that the Philippines honor its obligations under the Extradition
Treaty it entered into with the HK.
 However, it does not necessarily mean that the Philippines should diminish
a potential extraditee’s rights to life, liberty, and due process.
Clear and convincing evidence in granting bail in extradition cases
 Chief Justice Reynato Puno: should be lower than proof beyond reasonable
doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence.
Dispositive portion:
Remand to the trial court to determine whether Muñoz is entitled to bail on the
basis of clear and convincing evidence.
Hongkong vs. Muñoz (2016)
 2006 – RTC ruled on the main case of extradition by holding that the
extradition request sufficiently complied with the RP-HK Agreement.
 Muñoz elevated the case to CA, questioning the extraditability of the
offense, considering the nature of the crimes charged and the pieces of
evidence presented in support of the petition.
Ruling of CA
 2012 - The crime of conspiracy to defraud was explicitly included in the
offenses covered by the RP-HK Agreement and that both offenses
(conspiracy to defraud and accepting an advantage as an agent)
satisfied the double criminality rule
o Double criminality rule – the extraditable offense must be
criminal under the laws of both the requesting and the requested
states
 2013 – CA partially granted Muñoz’ MR. It concluded the crime of
accepting an advantage should be excluded from the charges due to non-
compliance with the double criminality rule.
Issue: W/N the crime of accepting an advantage as an agent did not
comply with the double criminality rule
Background of the relevant law/treaty:
 A state must extradite only when obliged by treaty to do so.
 The RP-HK Agreement is still in full force and effect as an extradition treaty.
 For purposes of the extradition of Muñoz, the HK as the requesting state
must establish the ff. six elements:
1. There must be an extradition treaty in force
2. The criminal charges that are pending in the HK against the person to
be extradited
3. The crimes for which the person to be extradited is charged are
extraditable within the terms of the treaty
4. The individual before the court is the same person charges in the HK
5. The evidence submitted establishes probable cause to believe that
the person to be extradited committed the offenses charged
6. The offenses are criminal in both the RP and HK (double criminality
rule)
 The double criminality rule was not complied in this case.
 Conspiracy to defraud = estafa through false pretenses (Art 315, RPC)
 Accepting an advantage as an agent => no equivalent felony in the Phils
according to CA
POBO definition
 Corrupt transactions with agents:
o Any agent who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse,
solicits, or accepts any advantage as an inducement to or reward for
or otherwise on account of his
a. Doing or forbearing to do, or having done or forborne to do,
any act in relation to his principal’s affairs or business
 RTC and CA (initially), determined that the crime is analogous to the crime
of corrupt practices of public officers as defined in RA 3019 (Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act).
 CA reversed itself and held that the POBO referred only to private
individuals, not to persons belonging to the public sector.
- POBO was a two-part statute concerned with the corruption by
public officials and corruption in the private sector.
- If a person offers an advantage to an agent OR being an agent, he
solicits or accepts an advantage
 That the crime of accepting an advantage as an agent did not have an
equivalent in the Philippine jurisdiction, considering that when the
unauthorized giving and receiving of benefits happened in the private
sector, the same was not a crime because there was no law that defined
and punished such act as criminal in this jurisdiction.
Rulings of the SC
 The particular provision of the POBO allegedly violated by Muñoz deals with
private sector bribery (Sec 9).
 Sec 9 of POBO has a parallel POBO provision applicable to public servants,
which is Sec. 4.
 Considering that the transactions were entered into by and in behalf of the
Central Bank of the Phils., Muñoz should be charged for the offenses not as
a regular agent or one representing a private entity but as a public servant
or employee of the Phil. Govt.
 The offense charged against Muñoz is the one that deals with private sector
bribery and thus, the double criminality rule was not complied with.
 Munoz should be proceeded against only for the 7 counts of conspiracy to
defraud.
Separate Opinion:
other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to
intervene under the law.
 Thus, the totality of acts or omissions alleged against Munoz
constitutes an offense against Philippine laws.
 The intent of both statutes is the same. Corruption undermines the totalit
of government.
 Every act of corruption involves both a public officer and a private individual
or entity. The private individual may have actively participated in conspiracy
or as the principal by inducement.
Pacta sunt servanda
 The treaty clearly commands both jurisdictions not to frustrate the ends of
justice by unnecessarily truncating the acts being punished through resort
to conjectural technical possibilities.
 The Court should not analyze the elements of the offense prescribed by the
HK law.
 Moreover, the term agent also covers public servants in another
jurisdiction.
 The acts of Munoz complied with the ff elements under the
Agreement:
1. Totality of the acts alleged against Munoz is punishable under the laws
of both the PH and HK; and
2. Is punishable by imprisonment of more than 1 year
 The surrender should be granted under Art 2 of the RP-HK
Agreement.
Expertise of courts
 Courts cannot be expected to be experts in the other jurisdiction’s
jurisprudence. A misinterpretation of HK laws by a Philippine court will,
indeed, be fraught with danger that could have been avoided.

J. Leonen, dissenting

PD 1069 (Phil. Extradition Law)

 Extradition may be granted only under a treaty or convention.

RP-HK Agreement
 In determining whether an offense is an offense punishable under the laws
of both parties, the totality of the acts or omissions alleged against
the person whose surrender is sought shall be taken into account,
without reference to the elements of the offense prescribed by the
law of the requesting Party.
- To create the greatest comity between the PH and HK, which, in turn,
would allow for the RP-HK Agreement to be more effective.

Under Sec. 3, RA 3019:

 Corrupt practices of public officers
o Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving an gift, present, share,
percentage, or benefit for himself or for any other person, in
connection with any contract or transaction between the Govt and any