Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia, Jr.

,
GR No. 153675, April 19, 2007 enrol

Facts:
Munoz was charged before the Hong Kong Court, after successfully requesting for his
preliminary arrest, he was detained. Munoz questions the validity of his arrest but it
was dismissed and his arrest was found to be final and executory. On the other hand
a petition for extradition was filed by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,
this is granted, Munoz filed a petition for bail but it was dismissed on the ground that
there is no law granting it, then another judge heard the case, when he filed for
petition for bail it was granted provided he will follow the conditions set in his bail,
this was opposed by the petitioner but the trial court dismissed their opposition.

The petitioner posit that the trail court committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in admitting private respondent to bail;
that there is nothing in the Constitution or statutory law providing that a potential
extraditee has a right to bail, the right being limited solely to criminal proceedings.

Hon. Olalia Jr., the judge,averred that the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of
Rights extends to a prospective extraditee; and that extradition is a harsh process
resulting in a prolonged deprivation of one’s liberty.Section 13, Article III of the
Constitution provides that the right to bail shall not be impaired

Issue:
Whether a prospective extraditee may be granted bail.

Ruling:
Yes, they may be granted bail.

The Supreme Court after thoroughly explaining the adoption of the right to bail in
the international law, it adopted the proposal of Chief Justice Puno, they explained
that, “Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new
standard which he termed "clear and convincing evidence" should be used in
granting bail in extradition cases. According to him, this standard should be lower
than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of 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, Munoz was detained for two years while the extradition case is pending,
there was also no clear showing that he is a flight risk as he stayed in the country and
abides by the conditions set on his bail, hence with the new standard set by the
court, the case should be remanded to the trial court to determine if Munos is
entitled for bail on the basis of “clear and convincing evidence” that he is not a flight
risk, and that he will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court.

Wherefore, the petition is dismissed, and the case is remanded to the trial court.