C. RODRIGUEZ V.

JUDGE,
G.R. NO. 157977, FEB. 27, 2006
DOCTRINE:
Although prospective extraditee is not entitled to notice and hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the rule is
different in the case of a cancellation of bail that had been issued after determination that the extraditee is a no-flight risk, prior
notice and hearing should be given.

The grant of the bail, presupposes that the co-petitioner has already presented evidence to prove her right to be on bail, that she is
no flight risk, and the trial court had already exercised its sound discretion and had already determined that under the
Constitution and laws in force, co-petitioner is entitled to provisional release.

The benefits of continued temporary liberty on bail should not be revoked and their grant of bail should not be cancelled without
giving the petitioner notice and without her being heard why her temporary liberty should not be discontinued.

FACTS:
The case originated from a petition for extradition filed by the US government against the petitioners.

After the arrest of petitioners Eduardo Tolentino Rodriguez and Imelda Gener Rodriguez, they applied for bail which the trial
court granted, the US government filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.

The US government then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed the trial court to
resolve the matter of bail based on a similar case.

he trial court, without prior notice and hearing, cancelled the cash bond of the petitioners and ordered the issuance of a warrant
of arrest. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The petitioners then filed the present petition,
arguing that the cancellation of their bail without prior notice and hearing was a grave abuse of discretion. They also argued that
their special circumstance of voluntary extradition should be considered as an exception to the general rule of "no-bail" in
extradition cases.

ISSUE:
1) whether prior notice and hearing are required before bail is cancelled in an extradition case,

YES. The Court ruled that, cancellation of the co-petitioner's bail without prior notice and hearing violated her right to due
process.

Although prospective extraditee is not entitled to notice and hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the rule is
different in the case of a cancellation of bail that had been issued after determination that the extraditee is a no-flight risk, prior
notice and hearing should be given.

The grant of the bail, presupposes that the co-petitioner has already presented evidence to prove her right to be on bail, that she is
no flight risk, and the trial court had already exercised its sound discretion and had already determined that under the
Constitution and laws in force, co-petitioner is entitled to provisional release.

The benefits of continued temporary liberty on bail should not be revoked and their grant of bail should not be cancelled without
giving the petitioner notice and without her being heard why her temporary liberty should not be discontinued.

GOVERNMENT OF HSAR v OLALIA

The standard to be used in granting bail in extradition cases should be “clear and convincing evidence,” which is lower than
proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence.

It is imperative that the potential extradite 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. Furthermore, extradition is summary in nature, and the rules
of evidence are relaxed.