2S PIL Case Digests

Extradition #06_Pagay
AUTHOR
TOPIC

CASE TITLE Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region vs. Hon. GR NO 153675
Felixberto T. Olalia

TICKLER Clear and convincing evidence DATE April 19, 2007

DOCTRINE While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an extraditee, however, there
is no provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail, a right to due process under
the Constitution.

On January 30, 1995, the Republic of the Philippines and the then British Crown Colony of
Hong Kong signed an "Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons." It took
effect on June 20, 1997.

On July 1, 1997, Hong Kong reverted back to the People's Republic of China and became the
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Private respondent Muñoz was charged before the Hong Kong Court with three (3) counts of
the offense of "accepting an advantage as agent," in violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of the
Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201 of Hong Kong. He also faces seven (7) counts of the
offense of conspiracy to defraud, penalized by the common law of Hong Kong. On August 23,
1997 and October 25, 1999, warrants of arrest were issued against him. If convicted, he faces a
jail term of seven (7) to fourteen (14) years for each charge.

The DOJ received from the Hong Kong Department of Justice a request for the provisional
arrest of private respondent. The DOJ then forwarded the request to the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) which, in turn, filed with the RTC of Manila, Branch 19 an application for the
provisional arrest of private respondent.

FACTS The RTC, Branch 19, Manila issued an Order of Arrest against private respondent. That same
day, the NBI agents arrested and detained him.

Private respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus with application for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or writ of habeas
corpus questioning the validity of the Order of Arrest.

The Court of Appeals rendered its Decision declaring the Order of Arrest void.

The DOJ filed a petition for review on certiorari, praying that the Decision of the Court of
Appeals be reversed.

The Court rendered a Decision granting the petition of the DOJ and sustaining the validity of the
Order of Arrest against private respondent. The Decision became final and executory.

Meanwhile, petitioner Hong Kong Special Administrative Region filed with the RTC of Manila a
petition for the extradition of private respondent, presided by Judge Ricardo Bernardo, Jr. For
his part, private respondent filed in the same case a petition for bail which was opposed by
petitioner.

After hearing, Judge Bernardo, Jr. issued an Order denying the petition for bail, holding that
there is no Philippine law granting bail in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high
"flight risk.”
2S [AY 2020-2021]
San Beda University – College of Law
 2S PIL Case Digests
there is no Philippine law granting bail in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high
"flight risk.”

Then, Judge Bernardo, Jr. inhibited himself from further hearing. It was then raffled off to Branch
8 presided by respondent judge. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Order denying his application for bail. This was granted by respondent judge.

ISSUE/S Whether or not clear and convincing evidence should be used in granting bail in extradition
cases.

YES. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether private
respondent is entitled to bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence." If not, the trial
court should order the cancellation of his bail bond and his immediate detention; and
thereafter, conduct the extradition proceedings with dispatch.

An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard of proof required in granting or
denying bail can neither be the proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the
standard of proof of preponderance of evidence in civil cases. While administrative in
character, the standard of substantial evidence used in administrative cases cannot likewise
apply given the object of extradition law which is to prevent the prospective extraditee from
fleeing our jurisdiction. In his Separate Opinion in Purganan, then 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, there is no showing that private respondent presented evidence to show that he
is not a flight risk. Consequently, 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."

RULING/S While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an extraditee, however, there
is no provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail, a right to due process under
the Constitution.

The applicable standard of due process, however, should not be the same as that in criminal
proceedings. In the latter, the standard of due process is premised on the presumption of
innocence of the accused. As Purganan correctly points out, it is from this major premise that
the ancillary presumption in favor of admitting to bail arises. Bearing in mind the purpose of
extradition proceedings, the premise behind the issuance of the arrest warrant and the
"temporary detention" is the possibility of flight of the potential extraditee. This is based on the
assumption that such extraditee is a fugitive from justice. Given the foregoing, the prospective
extraditee thus bears the onus probandi of showing that he or she is not a flight risk and
should be granted bail.

The time-honored principle of pacta sunt servanda demands that the Philippines honor its
obligations under the Extradition Treaty it entered into with the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region. Failure to comply with these obligations is a setback in our foreign
relations and defeats the purpose of extradition. However, it does not necessarily mean that in
keeping with its treaty obligations, the Philippines should diminish a potential extraditee's
rights to life, liberty, and due process. More so, where these rights are guaranteed, not only by
our Constitution, but also by international conventions, to which the Philippines is a party. We
should not, therefore, deprive an extraditee of his right to apply for bail, provided that a certain
standard for the grant is satisfactorily met.

2S [AY 2020-2021]
San Beda University – College of Law
 2S PIL Case Digests

NOTES But while extradition is not a criminal proceeding, it is characterized by the following: (a) it
entails a deprivation of liberty on the part of the potential extraditee and (b) the means
employed to attain the purpose of extradition is also "the machinery of criminal
law." This is shown by Section 6 of P.D. No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law) which
mandates the "immediate arrest and temporary detention of the accused" if such "will best
serve the interest of justice." We further note that Section 20 allows the requesting state "in
case of urgency" to ask for the "provisional arrest of the accused, pending receipt of the
request for extradition;" and that release from provisional arrest "shall not prejudice re-arrest
and extradition of the accused if a request for extradition is received subsequently."

Obviously, an extradition proceeding, while ostensibly administrative, bears all earmarks of a

criminal process. A potential extraditee may be subjected to arrest, to a prolonged
restraint of liberty, and forced to transfer to the demanding state following the
proceedings. "Temporary detention" may be a necessary step in the process of extradition, but
the length of time of the detention should be reasonable.

2S [AY 2020-2021]
San Beda University – College of Law