55. USA vs Purganan & Crespo, GR No.

148571, September 24, 2002

FACTS:

This petition is a sequel to Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion. Pursuant to the existing RP – US
Extradition Treaty, the U.S. government, through diplomatic channels, requested from the RP the
extradition of Mark Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo.

Pursuant to Sec. 5 of the P.D. No. 1069 (Extradition Law), DFA transmitted the extradition
request to DOJ. Jimenez was granted a TRO that prohibited DOJ from filing with the RTC a petition for
his extradition. However, the validity of the TRO was assailed by the Secretary of Justice but the petition
was dismissed. DOJ was ordered to furnish Jimenez copies of the extradition request and its supporting
documents, and to grant him a reasonable period within which to file a comment with supporting
evidence.

Secretary of Justice filed for a Motion for Reconsideration and the Court reversed its earlier
decision. It held that Mark Jimenez was bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation
stage of the extradition process. The resolution became final and executory.

Finding no more legal obstacle, the government of U.S. represented by DOJ, filed with the RTC
the appropriate petition for extradition alleging that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest warrant issued
by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in connection with the charges against him.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the respondent (Mark Jimenez) is entitled to Notice and Hearing before the
issuance of a Warrant of Arrest?

2. Whether or not the respondent is entitled to bail?

3. Whether or not there has been a violation of due process on the part of the respondent?

RULING:

1. Whether or not the respondent (Mark Jimenez) is entitled to Notice and Hearing before the
issuance of a Warrant of Arrest?

No. Sec. 6 of P.D. 1069 (Extradition Law) uses the word “immediate” to qualify the arrest of the
accused. Arrest subsequent to a hearing can no longer be considered “immediate”.

In Ho. Vs. People, never was a judge required to go to the extent of conducting a hearing just for
the purpose of personally determining the probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of
arrest. All that is required was that the Judge must have sufficient supporting documents upon
which to make his independent judgment, or at the very least, upon which to verify the findings
of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause.
 That the case under consideration is an extradition and not a criminal action, where in Notice
and Hearing, the innocence and guilt of the accused is being determined as the issue of the case.
While in extradition proceeding, the issue is whether the extraditee is to be disposed to the
requesting country based on the probable cause of the case.

2. Whether or not the respondent is entitled to bail?

No. The petitioner claims that there is no provision in the Philippine Constitution granting the
right to bail to a person who is the subject of an extradition request and arrest warrant.

Sec. 13 of Art. 3 of the Philippine Constitution as well as Sec. 4 of Rule 114 of Rules of Court does
not apply to extradition proceedings, because extradition courts does not render judgments of
conviction or acquittal.

Presumption of innocence is not an issue in extradition proceedings, therefore constitutional

bail will not apply. That the offense on which Jimenez is sought to be extradited are bailable in
the U.S. courts that will conduct the trial to prove his innocence or guilt.

3. Whether or not there has been a violation of due process on the part of the respondent?

No. The respondent will be given a full opportunity to be heard subsequently, when the
extradition courts hears the petition for Extradition. Hence, there is no violation of his right to
due process.