Government of the United States of America vs.

Purganan

GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, represented by the Philippine Department of

Justice, petitioner, vs. Hon. GUILLERMO G. PURGANAN, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 42; and MARK B. JIMENEZ a.k.a. MARIO BATACAN CRESPO, respondents.

G.R. No. 148571. September 24, 2002.

In extradition proceedings, are prospective extraditees entitled to notice and hearing before warrants for
their arrest can be issued? NO

Equally important, are they entitled to the right to bail and provisional liberty while the extradition
proceedings are pending? NO

NATURE OF THE CASE: Before us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking
to void and set aside the 2 Orders issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 42

SC DECISION: WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed RTC Order dated May 23, 2001 is
hereby declared NULL and VOID, while the challenged Order dated July 3,2001 is SET ASIDE insofar as it
granted bail to Respondent Mark Jimenez. The bail bond posted by private respondent is CANCELLED.
The Regional Trial Court of Manila is directed to conduct the extradition proceedings before it, 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. No costs.

FACTS:

o Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the United States Government sent to the
Philippine Government Note Verbale requesting the extradition of Mark B. Jimenez.

o Upon receipt of the Notes and documents, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs transmitted them to
the Sec. of Justice for appropriate action, pursuant to Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1069, also
known as the Extradition Law.

o Thus, the Philippine DOJ representing the Government of the United States of America, filed the
Petition for Extradition with the RTC.

The Petition alleged that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the United
States District Court in Florida. The warrant had been issued in connection with the following
charges:
(1) conspiracy to defraud the United States
(2) tax evasion
(3) wire fraud
(4) false statements
(5) illegal campaign contributions,
 In order to prevent the flight of Jimenez, the Petition prayed for the issuance of an order for
his “immediate arrest.”

o With this, Respondent Jimenez filed before it an “Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion,”

which prayed that petitioner’s application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing.

o RTC granted the respondent’s petition and issue the first assailed Order, setting the application
for an arrest warrant for hearing.

o Also, Respondent prayed that in case a warrant should issue, he be allowed to post bail. This
was also granted by the RTC and issued the second assailed Order directing the issuance of a
warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at one million pesos in cash.

o In view of the issuance of the RTC of the 2 assailed Orders, the herein Petitioner filed a Petition
for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to void and set aside the 2 Orders
issued by the Regional Trial Court.

Order No. 1
PETITIONER ARGUMENT RESPONDENT DEFENSE

With regard to the first Assailed Order, the
Petitioner contended that the procedure
adopted by the RTC —informing the
accused, a fugitive from justice, that an
Extradition Petition has been filed against
him, and that petitioner is seeking his
arrest—gives him notice to escape and to
avoid extradition. Moreover, petitioner
pleads that such procedure may set a
dangerous precedent, in that those sought
to be extradited—including terrorists,
mass murderers and war criminals—may
invoke it in future extradition cases.
DUE PROCESS – RIGHT TO
LIBERTY
On the other hand, Respondent
Jimenez argues that he should
not be hurriedly and arbitrarily
deprived of his constitutional
right to liberty without due
process.

Order No. 2
PETITIONER RESPONDENT
BAIL
On the other hand, petitioner claims that Respondent Mark B. Jimenez
there is no provision in the Philippine maintains that this
Constitution granting the right to bail to a constitutional provision secures
person who is the subject of an the right to bail of all persons,
extradition request and arrest warrant including those sought to be
extradited.
ISSUES:

1. Whether Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant for his arrest can be issued.
(NO)
2. Whether he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are
pending. (NO)

The SC Discussed first the 5 Postulates of Extradition

1. Extradition Is a Major Instrument for the Suppression of Crime

2. The Requesting State Will Accord Due Process to the Accused
3. The Proceedings Are Sui Generis
4. Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith
5. There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight

RULING:

1. No. Jimenez is not entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant for his arrest can be issued
because this will cause the delay of his arrest in contravention to the intent of an Extradition and
because in extradition law, constitutional rights of an accused are not available for invocation.

The SC ruled that Section 6 of PD 1069, our Extradition Law, uses the word “immediate” to
qualify the arrest of the accused. This qualification would be rendered nugatory by setting for
hearing the issuance of the arrest warrant. Arrest subsequent to a hearing can no longer be
considered “immediate.”

In the case at bar, when the RTC set a hearing before it immediately effected the issuance of a
warrant of arrest only cause a delay in the arrest of the accused. The trial court is not expected
to make an exhaustive determination WON the person sought to be extradited is guilty or not.
The Court is expected merely to get a prima facie finding—sufficient to make a speedy initial
determination as regards the arrest and detention of the accused.

The SC agreed with the argument of the petitioner that in sending to persons sought to be
extradited a notice of the request for their arrest and setting it for hearing at some future date
would give them ample opportunity to prepare and execute an escape.

Second, on the basis of the Constitutional rights of the accused, the SC held that the the case
under consideration is an extradition and not a criminal action is not sufficient to justify the
adoption of a set of procedures more protective of the accused.

2. NO. Jimenez is not entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings
are pending.
The SC held that the word “conviction,” applies only when a person has been arrested and
detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply to extradition proceedings,
because extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal.

Moreover, the constitutional right to bail “flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of
every accused. Thus, it follows that the constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a case
like extradition, where the presumption of innocence is not at issue.

Exceptions to the “No Bail” Rule

Accordingly and to best serve the ends of justice, we believe and so hold that, after a potential
extraditee has been arrested or placed under the custody of the law, bail may be applied for and
granted as an exception, only upon a clear and convincing showing

(1) that, once granted bail, the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community;
and
(2) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances