1/28/24, 1:12 PM Case Digest: G.R. No. 139465 - Secretary of Justice v.

Lantion

Contact Search

Title
Secretary of Justice v. Lantion

Case Ponente Decision Date

G.R. No. 139465 MELO, J : 2000-01-18

The Supreme Court rules that Mark Jimenez does not have the right to be notified
and heard during the preliminary evaluation stage of his extradition process,
emphasizing that this stage is solely for the executive authority to determine the
sufficiency of the extradition request, while the determination of whether the
offense charged is extraditable or politically motivated is a matter for the trial
court to decide.

Digest Summary Case Similar

Copy Download

Facts:
On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received a request for the extradition of
Mark Jimenez to the United States.
The request was accompanied by the Grand Jury Indictment, warrant of arrest, and
other supporting documents.
Mark Jimenez requested copies of the extradition request and supporting
documents, as well as the right to be heard during the evaluation process.
The Department of Justice denied his request, stating that it was premature and that
the evaluation process is not a preliminary investigation.
Mark Jimenez filed a petition for mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition, seeking
copies of the requested documents and the right to be heard.

https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/digest/secretary-of-justice-v-lantion 1/3
1/28/24, 1:12 PM Case Digest: G.R. No. 139465 - Secretary of Justice v. Lantion

Issue:
Whether or not Mark Jimenez is entitled to copies of the extradition request and
supporting documents, as well as the right to be heard during the evaluation process.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mark Jimenez.
The Court held that Mark Jimenez is entitled to copies of the extradition request and
supporting documents, as well as the right to be heard during the evaluation process.

Ratio:
1. The evaluation stage in extradition proceedings is essentially ministerial and involves
checking the sufficiency of the documents attached to the extradition request.
2. The right to notice and hearing during the preliminary stage of extradition
proceedings is not expressly required by the RP-US Extradition Treaty or the
Philippine Extradition Law.
3. International extradition proceedings in the United States do not include the grant of
notice and hearing to the prospective extraditee at the preliminary stage.
4. The right to due process during the preliminary stage of extradition proceedings
arises from the Philippine Constitution, particularly the right to be heard.
5. The right to due process during the preliminary stage is not automatically operative
and depends on the presence of urgency and a prior request for provisional arrest.
6. In this case, there is no urgency or request for provisional arrest, and the formal
request for extradition has already been made, making the provisional arrest unlikely.
7. The determination of whether the offense charged is extraditable or politically
motivated is preliminary and will be resolved by the trial court.
8. The sufficiency of evidence of criminality is to be determined by the court based on
the laws of the requested state.
9. The prospective extraditee will have the opportunity to be heard on all issues,
including the sufficiency of the documents supporting the extradition request, before
the court if an extradition petition is filed.
10. The right to notice and hearing during the preliminary stage is not necessary in this
case as there is no actual danger of provisional arrest or deprivation of liberty.
11. The enforcement of a warrant of arrest will be governed by local laws and rules of
procedure, and the prospective extraditee will be entitled to all rights accorded by the
Constitution and laws.

https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/digest/secretary-of-justice-v-lantion 2/3
1/28/24, 1:12 PM Case Digest: G.R. No. 139465 - Secretary of Justice v. Lantion

12. The right of one state to demand the return of an alleged fugitive and the duty to
surrender the fugitive exist only when created by a treaty between the two countries.
13. The processing of the extradition request does not cause moral injury, and any moral
injury suffered can only be addressed by proving the unfoundedness of the charges
before the proper judicial authorities in the US.
14. Granting the request for copies of the extradition documents and an opportunity to
comment would unnecessarily delay the proceedings.

https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/digest/secretary-of-justice-v-lantion 3/3