U.

S VS JUDGE PURGANAN (SEQUEL TO LANTION)

Previous Case was dismissed but was overturned after a
motion for reconsideration was filed by SOJ. It held that
private respondent was bereft of the right to notice and
hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition
process. This Resolution has become final and
executory.
Finding no more legal obstacle, the Government of the
United States of America, represented by the Philippine
DOJ, filed with the RTC on May 18, 2001, the
appropriate Petition for Extradition
Before the RTC could act on the Petition,
Respondent Jimenez filed before it an Urgent
Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion,
[
which prayed that
petitioners application for an arrest warrant be set for
hearing. In its assailed May 23, 2001 Order, the RTC
granted the Motion of Jimenez and set the case for
hearing on June 5, 2001. In that hearing, petitioner
manifested its reservations on the procedure adopted
by the trial court allowing the accused in an extradition
case to be heard prior to the issuance of a warrant of
arrest.
After the hearing, the court a quo required the
parties to submit their respective memoranda. In his
Memorandum, Jimenez sought an alternative prayer:
that in case a warrant should issue, he be allowed to
post bail in the amount ofP100,000.
The alternative prayer of Jimenez was also set for
hearing on June 15, 2001. Thereafter, the court below
issued its questioned July 3, 2001 Order, directing the
issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his
temporary liberty at one million pesos in cas. After he
had surrendered his passport and posted the required
cash bond, Jimenez was granted provisional liberty via
the challenged Order dated July 4, 2001
Hence, this Petition
[
The public respondent acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in adopting a procedure
of first hearing a potential extraditee before issuing an
arrest warrant under Section 6 of PD No. 1069
(1) whether Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing
before a warrant for his arrest can be issued,
It is significant to note that Section 6 of PD 1069, our
Extradition Law, uses the word immediate to qualify
the arrest of the accused. Arrest subsequent to a
hearing can no longer be considered immediate.
it is evident that respondent judge could have already
gotten an impression from these records adequate for
him to make an initial determination of whether the
accused was someone who should immediately be
arrested in order to best serve the ends of justice. He
could have determined whether such facts and
circumstances existed as would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent person to believe that the
extradition request was prima facie meritorious. In
point of fact, he actually concluded from these
supporting documents that probable cause did exist
Hence, after having already determined therefrom that
a prima facie finding did exist, respondent judge gravely
abused his discretion when he set the matter for
hearing upon motion of Jimenez
In connection with the matter of immediate arrest,
however, the word hearing is notably absent from the
provision. Evidently, had the holding of a hearing at
that stage been intended, the law could have easily so
provided.
Even Section 2 of Article III of our Constitution, which is
invoked by Jimenez, does not require a notice or a
hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest
warrants, the Constitution itself requires only the
examination -- under oath or affirmation --
of complainants and the witnesses they may
produce. There is no requirement to notify and hear
the accused before the issuance of warrants of arrest.
An extradition [proceeding] is sui generis. It is not a
criminal proceeding which will call into operation all the
rights of an accused as guaranteed by the Bill of
Rights. To begin with, the process of extradition does
not involve the determination of the guilt or innocence
of an accused. His guilt or innocence will be adjudged
in the court of the state where he will be
extradited. Hence, as a rule, constitutional rights that
are only relevant to determine the guilt or innocence of
an accused cannot be invoked by an extradite

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. (pacta sunt
Servanda
Fourth, our executive branch of government voluntarily
entered into the Extradition Treaty, and our legislative
branch ratified it. Hence, the Treaty carries the
presumption that its implementation will serve the
national interest.
This principle requires that we deliver the accused to
the requesting country if the conditions precedent to
extradition, as set forth in the Treaty, are satisfied.
5. There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight
The present extradition case further validates the
premise that persons sought to be extradited have a
propensity to flee. Indeed, extradition hearings would
not even begin, if only the accused were willing to
submit to trial in the requesting country

Is Respondent Entitled to Bail?
Extradition Different from Ordinary Criminal
Proceedings
To stress, extradition proceedings are separate and
distinct from the trial for the offenses for which he is
charged. He should apply for bail before the courts
trying the criminal cases against him, not before the
extradition court.
Contrary to his contention, his detention prior to the
conclusion of the extradition proceedings does not
amount to a violation of his right to due process. We
iterate the familiar doctrine that the essence of due
process is the opportunity to be heard but, at the same
time, point out that the doctrine does not always call
for a prior opportunity to be heard. Where the
circumstances -- such as those present in an extradition
case -- call for it, a subsequent opportunity to be heard
is enough.
1. The ultimate purpose of extradition proceedings is to determine
whether the request expressed in the petition, supported by its annexes and the
evidence that may be adduced during the hearing of the petition, complies with
the Extradition Treaty and Law; and whether the person sought is
extraditable. The proceedings are intended merely to assist the requesting state
in bringing the accused -- or the fugitive who has illegally escaped -- back to its
territory, so that the criminal process may proceed therein.
2. By entering into an extradition treaty, the Philippines is deemed to have
reposed its trust in the reliability or soundness of the legal and judicial system of
its treaty partner, as well as in the ability and the willingness of the latter to grant
basic rights to the accused in the pending criminal case therein.
3. By nature then, extradition proceedings are not equivalent to a criminal
case in which guilt or innocence is determined. Consequently, an extradition case
is not one in which the constitutional rights of the accused are necessarily
available. It is more akin, if at all, to a courts request to police authorities for the
arrest of the accused who is at large or has escaped detention or jumped
bail. Having once escaped the jurisdiction of the requesting state, the reasonable
prima facie presumption is that the person would escape again if given the
opportunity.
4. Immediately upon receipt of the petition for extradition and its
supporting documents, the judge shall make a prima facie finding whether the
petition is sufficient in form and substance, whether it complies with the
Extradition Treaty and Law, and whether the person sought is extraditable. The
magistrate has discretion to require the petitioner to submit further
documentation, or to personally examine the affiants or witnesses. If convinced
that a prima facie case exists, the judge immediately issues a warrant for the
arrest of the potential extraditee and summons him or her to answer and to
appear at scheduled hearings on the petition.
5. After being taken into custody, potential extraditees may apply for
bail. Since the applicants have a history of absconding, they have the burden of
showing that (a) there is no flight risk and no danger to the community; and (b)
there exist special, humanitarian or compelling circumstances. The grounds used
by the highest court in the requesting state for the grant of bail therein may be
considered, under the principle of reciprocity as a special circumstance. In
extradition cases, bail is not a matter of right; it is subject to judicial discretion in
the context of the peculiar facts of each case.
6. Potential extraditees are entitled to the rights to due process and to
fundamental fairness. Due process does not always call for a prior opportunity to
be heard. A subsequent opportunity is sufficient due to the flight risk
involved. Indeed, available during the hearings on the petition and the answer is
the full chance to be heard and to enjoy fundamental fairness that is compatible
with the summary nature of extradition.
7. This Court will always remain a protector of human rights, a bastion of
liberty, a bulwark of democracy and the conscience of society. But it is also well
aware of the limitations of its authority and of the need for respect for the
prerogatives of the other co-equal and co-independent organs of government.
8. We realize that extradition is essentially an executive, not a judicial,
responsibility arising out of the presidential power to conduct foreign relations
and to implement treaties. Thus, the Executive Department of government has
broad discretion in its duty and power of implementation.
9. On the other hand, courts merely perform oversight functions and
exercise review authority to prevent or excise grave abuse and tyranny. They
should not allow contortions, delays and over-due process every little step of
the way, lest these summary extradition proceedings become not only inutile but
also sources of international embarrassment due to our inability to comply in
good faith with a treaty partners simple request to return a fugitive. Worse, our
country should not be converted into a dubious haven where fugitives and
escapees can unreasonably delay, mummify, mock, frustrate, checkmate and
defeat the quest for bilateral justice and international cooperation.
10. At bottom, extradition proceedings should be conducted with all
deliberate speed to determine compliance with the Extradition Treaty and Law;
and, while safeguarding basic individual rights, to avoid the
legalistic contortions, delays and technicalities that may negate that purpos
e.
international law becomes a part of the law of the land when there
is a positive act on the part of the government (transformation)
international law forms part with domestic law automatically
without the need of positive act of government (incorporation)