GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, represented by the

Philippine Department of Justice, Petitioner,

Vs. HON. FELIXBERTO T. OLALIA, JR. and JUAN ANTONIO MUÑOZ, Respondents.,
G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007

Date: 01/30/2024
Topic: Public International Law
Subtopic:
Digested by: Rizzie P. Soliman

Recit Ready

This case involves a Petition for Certiorari filed by the Government of Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region, seeking to nullify two Orders issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 8, Manila, presided by Judge Felixberto T. Olalia, Jr., in Civil Case No. 99-95773. The
challenged orders are: (1) the Order dated December 20, 2001, allowing private respondent Juan
Antonio Muñoz to post bail, and (2) the Order dated April 10, 2002, denying the motion to
vacate the December 20, 2001 Order.

Actors

Petitioner:
● Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, represented by the Philippine
Department of Justice

Respondents:
● Hon. Felixberto T. Olalia, Jr. (Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 8, Manila)
● Juan Antonio Muñoz (Private Respondent)

Facts
Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons:
● On January 30, 1995, the Republic of the Philippines and the British Crown Colony of
Hong Kong signed an "Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons,"
which became effective on June 20, 1997.

Reversion of Hong Kong to China:

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

Charges Against Juan Antonio Muñoz in Hong Kong:

● Private respondent Muñoz was charged before the Hong Kong Court with three counts of
"accepting an advantage as an agent" and seven counts of conspiracy to defraud, both
offenses under the laws of Hong Kong.
● Warrants of arrest were issued against Muñoz on August 23, 1997, and October 25, 1999.
If convicted, he faced a jail term of seven to fourteen years for each charge.
 GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, represented by the
Philippine Department of Justice, Petitioner,
Vs. HON. FELIXBERTO T. OLALIA, JR. and JUAN ANTONIO MUÑOZ, Respondents.,
G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007

Date: 01/30/2024
Topic: Public International Law
Subtopic:
Digested by: Rizzie P. Soliman

Request for Extradition:

● On September 13, 1999, the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the Philippines received a
request for the provisional arrest of Muñoz from the Hong Kong Department of Justice.
● The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed an application for the provisional arrest
of Muñoz with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 19.

Order of Arrest and Petition for Certiorari:

● On September 23, 1999, RTC, Branch 19, issued an Order of Arrest against Muñoz. The
NBI arrested and detained him on the same day.
● On October 14, 1999, Muñoz filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
with the Court of Appeals, questioning the validity of the Order of Arrest.

Decision of the Court of Appeals:

● On November 9, 1999, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision declaring the Order of
Arrest void.

Petition for Review:

● On November 12, 1999, the DOJ filed a petition for review on certiorari with the
Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. 140520, seeking to reverse the Court of Appeals
decision.

Decision of the Supreme Court:

● On December 18, 2000, the Supreme Court granted the petition of the DOJ and sustained
the validity of the Order of Arrest. The decision became final and executory on April 10,
2001.

Petition for Extradition:

● On November 22, 1999, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region filed a petition
for the extradition of Muñoz with the RTC of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No.
99-95733, originally assigned to Branch 10.

Motion for Bail and Change of Presiding Judge:

● Muñoz filed a petition for bail in the extradition case, which was initially denied by Judge
Ricardo Bernardo, Jr., Branch 10.
● On October 22, 2001, Judge Bernardo, Jr. inhibited himself from the case, and it was
raffled off to Branch 8, presided by respondent Judge Felixberto T. Olalia, Jr.
 GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, represented by the
Philippine Department of Justice, Petitioner,
Vs. HON. FELIXBERTO T. OLALIA, JR. and JUAN ANTONIO MUÑOZ, Respondents.,
G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007

Date: 01/30/2024
Topic: Public International Law
Subtopic:
Digested by: Rizzie P. Soliman

Granting of Bail and Motion to Vacate:

● On December 20, 2001, respondent Judge Olalia granted Muñoz's motion for
reconsideration and allowed him to post bail.
● On April 10, 2002, petitioner (Government of Hong Kong) filed an urgent motion to
vacate the order granting bail, but it was denied by respondent Judge Olalia.

Petition for Certiorari:

● The Government of Hong Kong filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, seeking to
nullify the orders of respondent Judge Olalia granting bail to Muñoz.

Legal Arguments:
● The petitioner alleged that the orders granting bail were issued with grave abuse of
discretion, as there is no constitutional provision granting bail to a potential extraditee.
● The respondent argued that the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of Rights extends to
a prospective extraditee.

Supreme Court Decision:

● The Supreme Court, in its decision, acknowledged the trend in international law towards
recognizing the importance of individual human rights.
● It emphasized the responsibility of the Philippines to protect and promote the right to
liberty and due process, as guaranteed by the Constitution and international conventions.

Extradition as Sui Generis:

● The Court recognized that while extradition is not a criminal proceeding, it involves the
deprivation of liberty and employs the machinery of criminal law.

Standard for Granting Bail in Extradition Cases:

● The Court, considering the international treaties protecting human rights, proposed a new
standard for granting bail in extradition cases, termed "clear and convincing evidence."

Remand to Trial Court:

● The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, remanding the case to the trial court to
determine whether private respondent is entitled to bail based on "clear and convincing
evidence."
● If not, the trial court was instructed to cancel the bail bond and order the immediate
detention of Muñoz, proceeding with the extradition case promptly.
 GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, represented by the
Philippine Department of Justice, Petitioner,
Vs. HON. FELIXBERTO T. OLALIA, JR. and JUAN ANTONIO MUÑOZ, Respondents.,
G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007

Date: 01/30/2024
Topic: Public International Law
Subtopic:
Digested by: Rizzie P. Soliman

Issue

Granting of Bail in Extradition Cases:

● Whether a prospective extraditee has the right to post bail during the pendency of
extradition proceedings.
● Whether the trial court, in this case, committed grave abuse of discretion by granting bail
to Juan Antonio Muñoz.

Interpretation of Constitutional Right to Bail:

● Whether the right to bail, as guaranteed by Section 13, Article III of the Philippine
Constitution, extends to individuals facing extradition.
● Whether the constitutional provision on bail is applicable only to criminal proceedings
and not to extradition cases.

International Law and Human Rights:

● Whether the trend in international law towards recognizing the importance of individual
human rights, particularly the right to liberty, should be considered in extradition cases.
● Whether the Philippines, as a party to international conventions protecting human rights,
has an obligation to uphold and respect the rights of individuals, even in extradition
proceedings.

Nature of Extradition Proceedings:

● Whether extradition proceedings are sui generis, involving a deprivation of liberty and
employing the machinery of criminal law, despite being administrative in character.
● Whether the nature of extradition proceedings justifies the application of a new standard
for granting bail, considering the potential infringement on the right to liberty.

Standard for Granting Bail in Extradition Cases:

● Whether the traditional standards of proof beyond reasonable doubt, preponderance of
evidence, or substantial evidence are appropriate for determining whether a prospective
extraditee should be granted bail.
● Whether the proposed "clear and convincing evidence" standard, as suggested in the case,
is the appropriate threshold for granting bail in extradition cases.

Compliance with Extradition Treaty:

● Whether the Philippines, by granting bail to a potential extraditee, would be in
compliance with its obligations under the extradition treaty with the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region.
 GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, represented by the
Philippine Department of Justice, Petitioner,
Vs. HON. FELIXBERTO T. OLALIA, JR. and JUAN ANTONIO MUÑOZ, Respondents.,
G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007

Date: 01/30/2024
Topic: Public International Law
Subtopic:
Digested by: Rizzie P. Soliman

● Whether the refusal to grant bail would hinder the fulfillment of treaty obligations or
cause a setback in foreign relations.

Role of the Philippines in Upholding Human Rights:

● Whether the Philippines, as a state committed to upholding human rights and dignity,
should take measures to ensure that the rights of individuals, even in the context of
extradition, are respected and protected.

Ruling

Right to Bail in Extradition Cases:

The Court acknowledged that extradition proceedings involve a deprivation of liberty and use the
machinery of criminal law. It recognized that a potential extraditee may be subjected to arrest
and prolonged restraint of liberty.

Interpretation of Constitutional Right to Bail:

The Court held that the constitutional right to bail, as guaranteed by Section 13, Article III of the
Philippine Constitution, does not automatically extend to individuals facing extradition. It
emphasized that the right to bail applies only to criminal proceedings, and extradition
proceedings are not criminal in nature.

International Law and Human Rights:

The Court recognized the trends in international law emphasizing the importance of individual
human rights. It highlighted the duty of the Philippines, as a party to international conventions
protecting human rights, to uphold and respect the rights of individuals even in extradition cases.

Nature of Extradition Proceedings:

The Court acknowledged that extradition proceedings are sui generis, not being criminal or civil
in nature. It emphasized that while administrative, extradition proceedings involve the
deprivation of liberty, and certain safeguards should be in place to protect the fundamental rights
of the potential extraditee.

Standard for Granting Bail in Extradition Cases:

The Court rejected the traditional standards of proof beyond reasonable doubt, preponderance of
evidence, or substantial evidence for determining bail in extradition cases. It proposed a new
standard of "clear and convincing evidence" for granting bail in extradition cases, considering
the nature and purpose of extradition proceedings.
 GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, represented by the
Philippine Department of Justice, Petitioner,
Vs. HON. FELIXBERTO T. OLALIA, JR. and JUAN ANTONIO MUÑOZ, Respondents.,
G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007

Date: 01/30/2024
Topic: Public International Law
Subtopic:
Digested by: Rizzie P. Soliman

Compliance with Extradition Treaty:

The Court recognized the obligation of the Philippines to honor its commitments under the
Extradition Treaty with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. It emphasized that
failure to comply with these obligations could have implications for foreign relations.

Role of the Philippines in Upholding Human Rights:

The Court underscored the responsibility of the Philippines to protect and promote the rights of
every person to liberty and due process, as enshrined in Section II, Article II of the Constitution.
It emphasized that the Philippines should not deprive an extraditee of the right to apply for bail,
provided certain standards are met.

Link: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_153675_2007.html