EN BANC WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the [Court] finds probable cause against

respondent Mark Jimenez. Accordingly let a Warrant for the arrest of the respondent be
issued. Consequently and taking into consideration Section 9, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure, this Court fixes the reasonable amount of bail for respondents
[G.R. No. 148571. September 24, 2002] temporary liberty at ONE MILLION PESOS (Php 1,000,000.00), the same to be paid in cash.

Furthermore respondent is directed to immediately surrender to this Court his passport and the
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation is likewise directed to include the name of the
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, represented by the Philippine respondent in its Hold Departure List.[4]
Department of Justice, petitioner, vs. Hon. GUILLERMO G. PURGANAN,
Morales, and Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 42; and
Essentially, the Petition prays for the lifting of the bail Order, the cancellation of
MARK B. JIMENEZ a.k.a. MARIO BATACAN CRESPO,respondents.
the bond, and the taking of Jimenez into legal custody.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.: The Facts

In extradition proceedings, are prospective extraditees entitled to notice and

hearing before warrants for their arrest can be issued? Equally important, are they This Petition is really a sequel to GR No. 139465 entitled Secretary of Justice v.
entitled to the right to bail and provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are Ralph C. Lantion.[5]
pending? In general, the answer to these two novel questions is Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty,[6] the United States
No. The explanation of and the reasons for, as well as theexceptions to, this rule are Government, through diplomatic channels, sent to the Philippine Government Note
laid out in this Decision. Verbale No. 0522 dated June 16, 1999, supplemented by Note Nos. 0597, 0720 and
0809 and accompanied by duly authenticated documents requesting the extradition of
Mark B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo. Upon receipt of the Notes
The Case and documents, the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the
secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate action, pursuant to Section 5 of Presidential
Decree (PD) No. 1069, also known as the Extradition Law.
Before us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking
to void and set aside the Orders dated May 23, 2001 [1] and July 3, 2001[2] issued by Upon learning of the request for his extradition, Jimenez sought and was granted
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 42. [3] The first assailed Order set for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by the RTC of Manila, Branch 25. [7] The TRO
hearing petitioners application for the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of prohibited the Department of Justice (DOJ) from filing with the RTC a petition for his
Respondent Mark B. Jimenez. extradition. The validity of the TRO was, however, assailed by the SOJ in a Petition
before this Court in the said GR No. 139465. Initially, the Court -- by a vote of 9-6 --
The second challenged Order, on the other hand, directed the issuance of a dismissed the Petition. The SOJ was ordered to furnish private respondent copies of
warrant, but at the same time granted bail to Jimenez. The dispositive portion of the the extradition request and its supporting papers and to grant the latter a reasonable
Order reads as follows: period within which to file a comment and supporting evidence.[8]
 Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the SOJ, this Court issued its required cash bond, Jimenez was granted provisional liberty via the challenged Order
October 17, 2000 Resolution.[9] By an identical vote of 9-6 -- after three justices dated July 4, 2001.[12]
changed their votes -- it reconsidered and reversed its earlier Decision. It held that
Hence, this Petition.[13]
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, Issues
represented by the Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC on May 18, 2001, the
appropriate Petition for Extradition which was docketed as Extradition Case No.
01192061. The Petition alleged, inter alia, that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest Petitioner presents the following issues for the consideration of this Court:
warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
I.
on April 15, 1999. The warrant had been issued in connection with the following
charges in Indictment No. 99-00281 CR-SEITZ: (1) conspiracy to defraud the United
States and to commit certain offenses in violation of Title 18 US Code Section 371; (2) The public respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
tax evasion, in violation of Title 26 US Code Section 7201; (3) wire fraud, in violation discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in adopting a procedure of first hearing a
of Title 18 US Code Sections 1343 and 2; (4) false statements, in violation of Title 18 potential extraditee before issuing an arrest warrant under Section 6 of PD No. 1069.
US Code Sections 1001 and 2; and (5) illegal campaign contributions, in violation of
Title 2 US Code Sections 441b, 441f and 437g(d) and Title 18 US Code Section 2. In II.
order to prevent the flight of Jimenez, the Petition prayed for the issuance of an order
for his immediate arrest pursuant to Section 6 of PD No. 1069. The public respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting the prayer for bail and in
Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Respondent Jimenez filed before it an allowing Jimenez to go on provisional liberty because:
Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion,[10] which prayed that petitioners application for
an arrest warrant be set for hearing. 1. An extradition court has no power to authorize bail, in the absence of any law that provides
In its assailed May 23, 2001 Order, the RTC granted the Motion of Jimenez and for such power.
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 2. Section 13, Article III (right to bail clause) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and Section
extradition case to be heard prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. 4, Rule 114 (Bail) of the Rules of Court, as amended, which [were] relied upon, cannot be
used as bases for allowing bail in extradition proceedings.
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
3. The presumption is against bail in extradition proceedings or proceedings leading to
a warrant should issue, he be allowed to post bail in the amount of P100,000.
extradition.
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 4. On the assumption that bail is available in extradition proceedings or proceedings leading to
the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at one extradition, bail is not a matter of right but only of discretion upon clear showing by the
million pesos in cash.[11] After he had surrendered his passport and posted the applicant of the existence of special circumstances.
5. Assuming that bail is a matter of discretion in extradition proceedings, the public court after requiring the parties to submit their respective memoranda and position
respondent received no evidence of special circumstances which may justify release on bail. papers on the matter and thus, the filing of a reconsideration motion would serve no
useful purpose; (2) the assailed orders are a patent nullity, absent factual and legal
6. The risk that Jimenez will flee is high, and no special circumstance exists that will engender basis therefor; and (3) the need for relief is extremely urgent, as the passage of
a well-founded belief that he will not flee. sufficient time would give Jimenez ample opportunity to escape and avoid extradition;
and (4) the issues raised are purely of law.[16]
7. The conditions attached to the grant of bail are ineffectual and do not ensure compliance by For resorting directly to this Court instead of the CA, petitioner submits the
the Philippines with its obligations under the RP-US Extradition Treaty. following reasons: (1) even if the petition is lodged with the Court of Appeals and such
appellate court takes cognizance of the issues and decides them, the parties would
8. The Court of Appeals Resolution promulgated on May 10, 2001 in the case still bring the matter to this Honorable Court to have the issues resolved once and for
entitled Eduardo T. Rodriguez et al. vs. The Hon. Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 17, all [and] to have a binding precedent that all lower courts ought to follow; (2) the
Manila, CA-G.R. SP No. 64589, relied upon by the public respondent in granting bail, had Honorable Court of Appeals had in one case[17] ruled on the issue by disallowing bail
been recalled before the issuance of the subject bail orders. [14] but the court below refused to recognize the decision as a judicial guide and all other
courts might likewise adopt the same attitude of refusal; and (3) there are pending
In sum, the substantive questions that this Court will address are: (1) whether issues on bail both in the extradition courts and the Court of Appeals, which, unless
Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant for his arrest can be issued, guided by the decision that this Honorable Court will render in this case, would
and (2) whether he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition resolve to grant bail in favor of the potential extraditees and would give them
proceedings are pending. Preliminarily, we shall take up the alleged prematurity of the opportunity to flee and thus, cause adverse effect on the ability of the Philippines to
Petition for Certiorari arising from petitioners failure to file a Motion for comply with its obligations under existing extradition treaties.[18]
Reconsideration in the RTC and to seek relief in the Court of Appeals (CA), instead of
in this Court.[15] We shall also preliminarily discuss five extradition postulates that will As a general rule, a petition for certiorari before a higher court will not prosper
guide us in disposing of the substantive issues. unless the inferior court has been given, through a motion for reconsideration, a
chance to correct the errors imputed to it. This rule, though, has certain exceptions:
(1) when the issue raised is purely of law, (2) when public interest is involved, or (3) in
case of urgency.[19] As a fourth exception, the Court has also ruled that the filing of a
The Courts Ruling motion for reconsideration before availment of the remedy of certiorari is not a sine
qua non, when the questions raised are the same as those that have already been
The Petition is meritorious. squarely argued and exhaustively passed upon by the lower court. [20] Aside from
being of this nature, the issues in the present case also involve pure questions of law
that are of public interest. Hence, a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed
with.
Preliminary Matters
Likewise, this Court has allowed a direct invocation of its original jurisdiction to
issue writs of certiorari when there are special and important reasons therefor.
Alleged Prematurity of Present Petition [21]
In Fortich v. Corona[22]we stated:
Petitioner submits the following justifications for not filing a Motion for
Reconsideration in the Extradition Court: (1) the issues were fully considered by such
[T]he Supreme Court has the full discretionary power to take cognizance of the petition filed In the interest of justice and to settle once and for all the important issue of bail in
directly [before] it if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised, extradition proceedings, we deem it best to take cognizance of the present
warrant. This has been the judicial policy to be observed and which has been reiterated in case. Such proceedings constitute a matter of first impression over which there is, as
subsequent cases, namely: Uy vs. Contreras, et. al., Torres vs. Arranz, Bercero vs. De Guzman, yet, no local jurisprudence to guide lower courts.
and, Advincula vs. Legaspi, et. al. As we have further stated in Cuaresma:
Five Postulates of Extradition
x x x. A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction to issue these writs The substantive issues raised in this case require an interpretation or
should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and construction of the treaty and the law on extradition. A cardinal rule in the
specifically set out in the petition. This is established policy. x x x. interpretation of a treaty or a law is to ascertain and give effect to its intent. [25] Since
PD 1069 is intended as a guide for the implementation of extradition treaties to which
Pursuant to said judicial policy, we resolve to take primary jurisdiction over the present the Philippines is a signatory,[26] understanding certain postulates of extradition will aid
petition in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations so as to promptly put an us in properly deciding the issues raised here.
end to the present controversy which, as correctly observed by petitioners, has sparked
1. Extradition Is a Major Instrument for the Suppression of Crime.
national interest because of the magnitude of the problem created by the issuance of the
assailed resolution. Moreover, x x x requiring the petitioners to file their petition first with the First, extradition treaties are entered into for the purpose of suppressing
Court of Appeals would only result in a waste of time and money. crime[27] by facilitating the arrest and the custodial transfer [28] of a fugitive[29] from one
state to the other.
That the Court has the power to set aside its own rules in the higher interests of justice is well-
With the advent of easier and faster means of international travel, the flight of
entrenched in our jurisprudence. We reiterate what we said in Piczon vs. Court of Appeals:[23]
affluent criminals from one country to another for the purpose of committing crime and
evading prosecution has become more frequent. Accordingly, governments are
Be it remembered that rules of procedure are but mere tools designed to facilitate the adjusting their methods of dealing with criminals and crimes that transcend
attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities international boundaries.
that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be avoided. Time and
again, this Court has suspended its own rules and excepted a particular case from their Today, a majority of nations in the world community have come to look
operation whenever the higher interests of justice so require. In the instant petition, we forego upon extradition as the major effective instrument of international co-operation in the
a lengthy disquisition of the proper procedure that should have been taken by the parties suppression of crime.[30] It is the only regular system that has been devised to return
involved and proceed directly to the merits of the case. fugitives to the jurisdiction of a court competent to try them in accordance with
municipal and international law.[31]
In a number of other exceptional cases,[24] we held as follows:
An important practical effect x x x of the recognition of the principle that criminals should be
This Court has original jurisdiction, concurrent with that of Regional Trial Courts and the restored to a jurisdiction competent to try and punish them is that the number of criminals
Court of Appeals, over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo seeking refuge abroad will be reduced. For to the extent that efficient means of detection and
warranto and habeas corpus, and we entertain direct resort to us in cases where special and the threat of punishment play a significant role in the deterrence of crime within the territorial
important reasons or exceptional and compelling circumstances justify the same. limits of a State, so the existence of effective extradition arrangements and the consequent
certainty of return to the locus delicti commissi play a corresponding role in the deterrence of
flight abroad in order to escape the consequence of crime. x x x. From an absence of
extradition arrangements flight abroad by the ingenious criminal receives direct An extradition [proceeding] is sui generis. It is not a criminal proceeding which will call into
encouragement and thus indirectly does the commission of crime itself. [32] 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
In Secretary v. Lantion[33] we explained: 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
The Philippines also has a national interest to help in suppressing crimes and one way to do it innocence of an accused cannot be invoked by an extraditee x x x.
is to facilitate the extradition of persons covered by treaties duly entered [into] by our
government. More and more, crimes are becoming the concern of one world. Laws involving xxxxxxxxx
crimes and crime prevention are undergoing universalization. One manifest purpose of this
trend towards globalization is to deny easy refuge to a criminal whose activities threaten the There are other differences between an extradition proceeding and a criminal proceeding. An
peace and progress of civilized countries. It is to the great interest of the Philippines to be part extradition proceeding is summary in nature while criminal proceedings involve a full-blown
of this irreversible movement in light of its vulnerability to crimes, especially transnational trial. In contradistinction to a criminal proceeding, the rules of evidence in an extradition
crimes. proceeding allow admission of evidence under less stringent standards. In terms of the
quantum of evidence to be satisfied, a criminal case requires proof beyond reasonable doubt
Indeed, in this era of globalization, easier and faster international travel, and an for conviction while a fugitive may be ordered extradited upon showing of the existence of a
expanding ring of international crimes and criminals, we cannot afford to be an prima facie case. Finally, unlike in a criminal case where judgment becomes executory upon
isolationist state. We need to cooperate with other states in order to improve our being rendered final, in an extradition proceeding, our courts may adjudge an individual
chances of suppressing crime in our own country. extraditable but the President has the final discretion to extradite him. The United States
adheres to a similar practice whereby the Secretary of State exercises wide discretion in
2. The Requesting State Will Accord Due Process to the Accused balancing the equities of the case and the demands of the nations foreign relations before
Second, an extradition treaty presupposes that both parties thereto have making the ultimate decision to extradite.
examined, and that both accept and trust, each others legal system and judicial
process.[34] More pointedly, our duly authorized representatives signature on an Given the foregoing, it is evident that the extradition court is not called upon to
extradition treaty signifies our confidence in the capacity and the willingness of the ascertain the guilt or the innocence of the person sought to be extradited. [37] Such
other state to protect the basic rights of the person sought to be extradited. [35] That determination during the extradition proceedings will only result in needless
signature signifies our full faith that the accused will be given, upon extradition to the duplication and delay. Extradition is merely a measure of international judicial
requesting state, all relevant and basic rights in the criminal proceedings that will take assistance through which a person charged with or convicted of a crime is restored to
place therein; otherwise, the treaty would not have been signed, or would have been a jurisdiction with the best claim to try that person. It is not part of the function of the
directly attacked for its unconstitutionality. assisting authorities to enter into questions that are the prerogative of that jurisdiction.
[38]
The ultimate purpose of extradition proceedings in court is only to determine
3. The Proceedings Are Sui Generis whether the extradition request complies with the Extradition Treaty, and whether the
Third, as pointed out in Secretary of Justice v. Lantion,[36] extradition proceedings person sought is extraditable.[39]
are not criminal in nature. In criminal proceedings, the constitutional rights of the 4. Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith.
accused are at fore; in extradition which is sui generis -- in a class by itself -- they are
not.
 Fourth, our executive branch of government voluntarily entered into the First Substantive Issue:
Extradition Treaty, and our legislative branch ratified it. Hence, the Treaty carries the Is Respondent Entitled to Notice and Hearing
presumption that its implementation will serve the national interest. Before the Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest?
Fulfilling our obligations under the Extradition Treaty promotes comity [40]with the
requesting state. On the other hand, failure to fulfill our obligations thereunder paints Petitioner contends that the procedure adopted by the RTC --informing the
a bad image of our country before the world community. Such failure would accused, a fugitive from justice, that an Extradition Petition has been filed against
discourage other states from entering into treaties with us, particularly an extradition him, and that petitioner is seeking his arrest -- gives him notice to escape and to avoid
treaty that hinges on reciprocity.[41] extradition. Moreover, petitioner pleads that such procedure may set a dangerous
Verily, we are bound by pacta sunt servanda to comply in good faith with our precedent, in that those sought to be extradited -- including terrorists, mass murderers
and war criminals -- may invoke it in future extradition cases.
obligations under the Treaty.[42] This principle requires that we deliver the accused to
the requesting country if the conditions precedent to extradition, as set forth in the On the other hand, Respondent Jimenez argues that he should not be hurriedly
Treaty, are satisfied. In other words, [t]he demanding government, when it has done and arbitrarily deprived of his constitutional right to liberty without due process. He
all that the treaty and the law require it to do, is entitled to the delivery of the accused further asserts that there is as yet no specific law or rule setting forth the procedure
on the issue of the proper warrant, and the other government is under obligation to prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest, after the petition for extradition has been
make the surrender.[43] Accordingly, the Philippines must be ready and in a position to filed in court; ergo, the formulation of that procedure is within the discretion of the
deliver the accused, should it be found proper. presiding judge.
5. There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight Both parties cite Section 6 of PD 1069 in support of their arguments. It states:
Fifth, persons to be extradited are presumed to be flight risks. This prima facie
presumption finds reinforcement in the experience[44] of the executive branch: nothing SEC. 6. Issuance of Summons; Temporary Arrest; Hearing, Service of Notices.- (1)
short of confinement can ensure that the accused will not flee the jurisdiction of the Immediately upon receipt of the petition, the presiding judge of the court shall, as soon as
requested state in order to thwart their extradition to the requesting state. practicable, summon the accused to appear and to answer the petition on the day and hour
fixed in the order. [H]e may issue a warrant for the immediate arrest of the accused which
The present extradition case further validates the premise that persons sought to may be served any where within the Philippines if it appears to the presiding judge that
be extradited have a propensity to flee. Indeed, extradition hearings would not even the immediate arrest and temporary detention of the accused will best serve the ends of
begin, if only the accused were willing to submit to trial in the requesting country. justice. Upon receipt of the answer, or should the accused after having received the summons
[45]
Prior acts of herein respondent -- (1) leaving the requesting state right before the fail to answer within the time fixed, the presiding judge shall hear the case or set another date
conclusion of his indictment proceedings there; and (2) remaining in the requested for the hearing thereof.
state despite learning that the requesting state is seeking his return and that the
crimes he is charged with are bailable -- eloquently speak of his aversion to the (2) The order and notice as well as a copy of the warrant of arrest, if issued, shall be promptly
processes in the requesting state, as well as his predisposition to avoid them at all served each upon the accused and the attorney having charge of the case. (Emphasis ours)
cost. These circumstances point to an ever-present, underlying high risk of flight. He
has demonstrated that he has the capacity and the will to flee. Having fled once, what Does this provision sanction RTC Judge Purganans act of immediately setting for
is there to stop him, given sufficient opportunity, from fleeing a second time? hearing the issuance of a warrant of arrest? We rule in the negative.
1. On the Basis of the Extradition Law
 It is significant to note that Section 6 of PD 1069, our Extradition Law, uses the from these supporting documents that probable cause did exist.In the second
word immediate to qualify the arrest of the accused. This qualification would be questioned Order, he stated:
rendered nugatory by setting for hearing the issuance of the arrest warrant. Hearing
entails sending notices to the opposing parties,[46] receiving facts and In the instant petition, the documents sent by the US Government in support of [its] request for
arguments[47] from them,[48] and giving them time to prepare and present such facts extradition of herein respondent are enough to convince the Court of the existence of probable
and arguments. Arrest subsequent to a hearing can no longer be considered cause to proceed with the hearing against the extraditee. [50]
immediate. The law could not have intended the word as a mere superfluity but, on
the whole, as a means of imparting a sense of urgency and swiftness in the We stress that the prima facie existence of probable cause for hearing the
determination of whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. petition and, a priori, for issuing an arrest warrant was already evident from the
By using the phrase if it appears, the law further conveys that accuracy is not as Petition itself and its supporting documents. Hence, after having already determined
important as speed at such early stage. The trial court is not expected to make therefrom that a prima facie finding did exist, respondent judge gravely abused his
an exhaustivedetermination to ferret out the true and actual situation, immediately discretion when he set the matter for hearing upon motion of Jimenez.[51]
upon the filing of the petition. From the knowledge and the material then available to Moreover, the law specifies that the court sets a hearing upon receipt of the
it, the court is expected merely to get a good first impression -- a prima facie finding -- answer or upon failure of the accused to answer after receiving the summons. In
sufficient to make a speedy initial determination as regards the arrest and detention of connection with the matter of immediate arrest, however, the word hearing is notably
the accused. absent from the provision. Evidently, had the holding of a hearing at that stage been
Attached to the Petition for Extradition, with a Certificate of Authentication among intended, the law could have easily so provided. It also bears emphasizing at this
others, were the following: (1) Annex H, the Affidavit executed on May 26, 1999 by Mr. point that extradition proceedings are summary[52]in nature. Hence, the silence of the
Michael E. Savage -- trial attorney in the Campaign Financing Task Force of the Law and the Treaty leans to the more reasonable interpretation that there is no
Criminal Division of the US Department of Justice; (2) Annexes H to G, evidentiary intention to punctuate with a hearing every little step in the entire proceedings.
Appendices of various exhibits that constituted evidence of the crimes charged in the
Indictment, with Exhibits 1 to 120 (duly authenticated exhibits that constituted It is taken for granted that the contracting parties intend something reasonable and something
evidence of the crimes charged in the Indictment); (3) Annex BB, the Exhibit I not inconsistent with generally recognized principles of International Law, nor with previous
Appendix of Witness [excerpts] Statements Referenced in the Affidavit of Angela treaty obligations towards third States. If, therefore, the meaning of a treaty is ambiguous, the
Byers and enclosed Statements in two volumes; (4) Annex GG, the Exhibit J Table of reasonable meaning is to be preferred to the unreasonable, the more reasonable to the less
Contents for Supplemental Evidentiary Appendix with enclosed Exhibits 121 to 132; reasonable x x x .[53]
and (5) Annex MM, the Exhibit L Appendix of Witness [excerpts] Statements
Referenced in the Affidavit of Betty Steward and enclosed Statements in two volumes. Verily, as argued by petitioner, sending to persons sought to be extradited a
[49] 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. Neither the
It is evident that respondent judge could have already gotten an impression from Treaty nor the Law could have intended that consequence, for the very purpose of
these records adequate for him to make an initial determination of whether the both would have been defeated by the escape of the accused from the requested
accused was someone who should immediately be arrested in order to best serve the state.
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 2. On the Basis of the Constitution
extradition request was prima facie meritorious. In point of fact, he actually concluded
 Even Section 2 of Article III of our Constitution, which is invoked by Jimenez, during the prima facie determination for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, what
does not require a notice or a hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest. It would stop him from presenting his entire plethora of defenses at this stage -- if he so
provides: desires -- in his effort to negate a prima facie finding? Such a procedure could convert
the determination of a prima facie case into a full-blown trial of the entire proceedings
Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against and possibly make trial of the main case superfluous. This scenario is also anathema
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, to the summary nature of extraditions.
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
That the case under consideration is an extradition and not a criminal action is
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
not sufficient to justify the adoption of a set of procedures more protective of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
accused. If a different procedure were called for at all, a more restrictive one -- not the
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
opposite -- would be justified in view of respondents demonstrated predisposition to
flee.
To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants, the Constitution
itself requires only the examination -- under oath or affirmation -- of complainants and Since this is a matter of first impression, we deem it wise to restate the proper
the witnesses they may produce. There is no requirement to notify and hear procedure:
the accused before the issuance of warrants of arrest.
Upon receipt of a petition for extradition and its supporting documents, the judge
In Ho v. People[54] and in all the cases cited therein, never was a judge required to must study them and make, as soon as possible, a prima facie finding whether (a)
go to the extent of conducting a hearing just for the purpose of personally determining they are sufficient in form and substance, (b) they show compliance with the
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. All we required was that the Extradition Treaty and Law, and (c) the person sought is extraditable. At his
judge must have sufficient supporting documents upon which to make his discretion, the judge may require the submission of further documentation or may
independent judgment, or at the very least, upon which to verify the findings of the personally examine the affiants and witnesses of the petitioner. If, in spite of this study
prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause.[55] and examination, no prima facie finding[58] is possible, the petition may be dismissed
at the discretion of the judge.
In Webb v. De Leon,[56] the Court categorically stated that a judge was not
supposed to conduct a hearing before issuing a warrant of arrest: On the other hand, if the presence of a prima facie case is determined, then the
magistrate must immediately issue a warrant for the arrest of the extraditee, who is at
Again, we stress that before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine personally the the same time summoned to answer the petition and to appear at scheduled
probability, not the certainty of guilt of an accused. In doing so, judges do not conduct a de summary hearings. Prior to the issuance of the warrant, the judge must not inform or
novo hearing to determine the existence of probable cause. They just personally review the notify the potential extraditee of the pendency of the petition, lest the latter be given
initial determination of the prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by the opportunity to escape and frustrate the proceedings. In our opinion, the foregoing
substantial evidence. procedure will best serve the ends of justice in extradition cases.

At most, in cases of clear insufficiency of evidence on record, judges merely

further examine complainants and their witnesses.[57] In the present case, validating Second Substantive Issue:
the act of respondent judge and instituting the practice of hearing the accused and his Is Respondent Entitled to Bail?
witnesses at this early stage would be discordant with the rationale for the entire
system. If the accused were allowed to be heard and necessarily to present evidence
 Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution, is worded as follows: habeas corpus finds application only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or
offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.[61] Hence, the second
Art. III, Sec. 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion sentence in the constitutional provision on bail merely emphasizes the right to bail in
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient criminal proceedings for the aforementioned offenses. It cannot be taken to mean that
sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not the right is available even in extradition proceedings that are not criminal in nature.
be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail
That the offenses for which Jimenez is sought to be extradited are bailable in the
shall not be required.
United States is not an argument to grant him one in the present case. To stress,
extradition proceedings are separate and distinct from the trial for the offenses for
Respondent Mark B. Jimenez maintains that this constitutional provision secures which he is charged. He should apply for bail before the courts trying the criminal
the right to bail of all persons, including those sought to be extradited. Supposedly, cases against him, not before the extradition court.
the only exceptions are the ones charged with offenses punishable with reclusion
perpetua, when evidence of guilt is strong. He also alleges the relevance to the No Violation of Due Process
present case of Section 4[59] of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court which, insofar as
Respondent Jimenez cites the foreign case Paretti[62] in arguing that,
practicable and consistent with the summary nature of extradition proceedings, shall
constitutionally, [n]o one shall be deprived of x x x liberty x x x without due process of
also apply according to Section 9 of PD 1069.
law.
On the other hand, petitioner claims that there is no provision in the Philippine
Contrary to his contention, his detention prior to the conclusion of the extradition
Constitution granting the right to bail to a person who is the subject of an extradition
proceedings does not amount to a violation of his right to due process. We iterate the
request and arrest warrant.
familiar doctrine that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard [63] but,
Extradition Different from Ordinary Criminal Proceedings at the same time, point out that the doctrine does not always call for
a prior opportunity to be heard.[64] Where the circumstances -- such as those present
We agree with petitioner. As suggested by the use of the word conviction, the in an extradition case -- call for it, a subsequent opportunity to be heard is enough.
constitutional provision on bail quoted above, as well as Section 4 of Rule 114 of the [65]
In the present case, respondent will be given full opportunity to be heard
Rules of Court, applies only when a person has been arrested and detained for subsequently, when the extradition court hears the Petition for Extradition. Hence,
violation of Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply to extradition proceedings, there is no violation of his right to due process and fundamental fairness.
because extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal.
Contrary to the contention of Jimenez, we find no arbitrariness, either, in the
Moreover, the constitutional right to bail flows from the presumption of innocence immediate deprivation of his liberty prior to his being heard. That his arrest and
in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as detention will not be arbitrary is sufficiently ensured by (1) the DOJs filing in court the
thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond Petition with its supporting documents after a determination that the extradition
reasonable doubt.[60] It follows that the constitutional provision on bail will not apply to request meets the requirements of the law and the relevant treaty; (2) the extradition
a case like extradition, where the presumption of innocence is not at issue. judges independent prima facie determination that his arrest will best serve the ends
The provision in the Constitution stating that the right to bail shall not be impaired of justice before the issuance of a warrant for his arrest; and (3) his opportunity, once
even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended does not detract he is under the courts custody, to apply for bail as an exception to the no-initial-bail
from the rule that the constitutional right to bail is available only in criminal rule.
proceedings. It must be noted that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
 It is also worth noting that before the US government requested the extradition of The rule, we repeat, is that bail is not a matter of right in extradition
respondent, proceedings had already been conducted in that country. But because he cases. However, the judiciary has the constitutional duty to curb grave abuse of
left the jurisdiction of the requesting state before those proceedings could be discretion[68] and tyranny, as well as the power to promulgate rules to protect and
completed, it was hindered from continuing with the due processes prescribed under enforce constitutional rights.[69] Furthermore, we believe that the right to due process
its laws. His invocation of due process now has thus become hollow. He already had is broad enough to include the grant of basic fairness to extraditees. Indeed, the right
that opportunity in the requesting state; yet, instead of taking it, he ran away. to due process extends to the life, liberty or property of every person. It is dynamic
and resilient, adaptable to every situation calling for its application.[70]
In this light, would it be proper and just for the government to increase the risk of
violating its treaty obligations in order to accord Respondent Jimenez his personal Accordingly and to best serve the ends of justice, we believe and so hold that,
liberty in the span of time that it takes to resolve the Petition for Extradition? His after a potential extraditee has been arrested or placed under the custody of the law,
supposed immediate deprivation of liberty without the due process that he had bail may be applied for and granted as an exception, only upon a clear and
previously shunned pales against the governments interest in fulfilling its Extradition convincing showing (1) that, once granted bail, the applicant will not be a flight risk or
Treaty obligations and in cooperating with the world community in the suppression of a danger to the community; and (2) that there exist special, humanitarian and
crime. Indeed, [c]onstitutional liberties do not exist in a vacuum; the due process compelling circumstances[71] including, as a matter of reciprocity, those cited by the
rights accorded to individuals must be carefully balanced against exigent and highest court in the requesting state when it grants provisional liberty in extradition
palpable government interests.[66] cases therein.
Too, we cannot allow our country to be a haven for fugitives, cowards and Since this exception has no express or specific statutory basis, and since it is
weaklings who, instead of facing the consequences of their actions, choose to run derived essentially from general principles of justice and fairness, the applicant bears
and hide. Hence, it would not be good policy to increase the risk of violating our treaty the burden of proving the above two-tiered requirement with clarity, precision and
obligations if, through overprotection or excessively liberal treatment, persons sought emphatic forcefulness. The Court realizes that extradition is basically an executive,
to be extradited are able to evade arrest or escape from our custody. In the absence not a judicial, responsibility arising from the presidential power to conduct foreign
of any provision -- in the Constitution, the law or the treaty -- expressly guaranteeing relations. In its barest concept, it partakes of the nature of police assistance amongst
the right to bail in extradition proceedings, adopting the practice of not granting them states, which is not normally a judicial prerogative.Hence, any intrusion by the courts
bail, as a general rule, would be a step towards deterring fugitives from coming to the into the exercise of this power should be characterized by caution, so that the vital
Philippines to hide from or evade their prosecutors. international and bilateral interests of our country will not be unreasonably impeded or
compromised. In short, while this Court is ever protective of the sporting idea of fair
The denial of bail as a matter of course in extradition cases falls into place with play, it also recognizes the limits of its own prerogatives and the need to fulfill
and gives life to Article 14[67] of the Treaty, since this practice would encourage the international obligations.
accused to voluntarily surrender to the requesting state to cut short their detention
here. Likewise, their detention pending the resolution of extradition proceedings would Along this line, Jimenez contends that there are special circumstances that are
fall into place with the emphasis of the Extradition Law on the summary nature of compelling enough for the Court to grant his request for provisional release on
extradition cases and the need for their speedy disposition. bail. We have carefully examined these circumstances and shall now discuss them.
1. Alleged Disenfranchisement
Exceptions to the No Bail Rule While his extradition was pending, Respondent Jimenez was elected as a
member of the House of Representatives. On that basis, he claims that his detention
will disenfranchise his Manila district of 600,000 residents. We are not
persuaded. In People v. Jalosjos,[72] the Court has already debunked the A strict scrutiny of classifications is essential lest[,] wittingly or otherwise, insidious
disenfranchisement argument when it ruled thus: discriminations are made in favor of or against groups or types of individuals.

When the voters of his district elected the accused-appellant to Congress, they did so with full The Court cannot validate badges of inequality. The necessities imposed by public welfare
awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action. They did so with the knowledge that he may justify exercise of government authority to regulate even if thereby certain groups may
could achieve only such legislative results which he could accomplish within the confines of plausibly assert that their interests are disregarded.
prison. To give a more drastic illustration, if voters elect a person with full knowledge that he
is suffering from a terminal illness, they do so knowing that at any time, he may no longer We, therefore, find that election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable
serve his full term in office. classification in criminal law enforcement. The functions and duties of the office are not
substantial distinctions which lift him from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom
In the ultimate analysis, the issue before us boils down to a question of constitutional equal and restricted in liberty of movement. Lawful arrest and confinement are germane to the
protection. purposes of the law and apply to all those belonging to the same class. [73]

The Constitution guarantees: x x x nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of It must be noted that even before private respondent ran for and won a
laws. This simply means that all persons similarly situated shall be treated alike both in rights congressional seat in Manila, it was already of public knowledge that the United
enjoyed and responsibilities imposed. The organs of government may not show any undue States was requesting his extradition. Hence, his constituents were or should have
favoritism or hostility to any person. Neither partiality nor prejudice shall be displayed. been prepared for the consequences of the extradition case against their
representative, including his detention pending the final resolution of the
Does being an elective official result in a substantial distinction that allows different case. Premises considered and in line with Jalosjos, we are constrained to rule
treatment? Is being a Congressman a substantial differentiation which removes the accused- against his claim that his election to public office is by itself a compelling reason to
appellant as a prisoner from the same class as all persons validly confined under law? grant him bail.
2. Anticipated Delay
The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers has never been an
excuse to free a person validly [from] prison. The duties imposed by the mandate of the people Respondent Jimenez further contends that because the extradition proceedings
are multifarious.The accused-appellant asserts that the duty to legislate ranks highest in the are lengthy, it would be unfair to confine him during the pendency of the case. Again
hierarchy of government. The accused-appellant is only one of 250 members of the House of we are not convinced. We must emphasize that extradition cases are summary in
Representatives, not to mention the 24 members of the Senate, charged with the duties of nature. They are resorted to merely to determine whether the extradition petition and
legislation. Congress continues to function well in the physical absence of one or a few of its its annexes conform to the Extradition Treaty, not to determine guilt or
members. Depending on the exigency of Government that has to be addressed, the President or innocence. Neither is it, as a rule, intended to address issues relevant to the
the Supreme Court can also be deemed the highest for that particular duty. The importance of a constitutional rights available to the accused in a criminal action.
function depends on the need for its exercise. The duty of a mother to nurse her infant is most
We are not overruling the possibility that petitioner may, in bad faith, unduly delay
compelling under the law of nature. A doctor with unique skills has the duty to save the lives
the proceedings. This is quite another matter that is not at issue here. Thus, any
of those with a particular affliction. An elective governor has to serve provincial
further discussion of this point would be merely anticipatory and academic.
constituents. A police officer must maintain peace and order. Never has the call of a particular
duty lifted a prisoner into a different classification from those others who are validly restrained However, if the delay is due to maneuverings of respondent, with all the more
by law. reason would the grant of bail not be justified. Giving premium to delay by considering
it as a special circumstance for the grant of bail would be tantamount to giving him the great majority of cases in this Tribunal. Moreover, after the Memos had been
power to grant bail to himself. It would also encourage him to stretch out and submitted, the parties -- particularly the potential extraditee -- have bombarded this
unreasonably delay the extradition proceedings even more. This we cannot allow. Court with additional pleadings -- entitled Manifestations by both parties and Counter-
Manifestation by private respondent -- in which the main topic was Mr. Jimenezs plea
3. Not a Flight Risk? for bail.
Jimenez further claims that he is not a flight risk. To support this claim, he A remand would mean that this long, tedious process would be repeated in its
stresses that he learned of the extradition request in June 1999; yet, he has not fled entirety. The trial court would again hear factual and evidentiary matters. Be it noted,
the country. True, he has not actually fled during the preliminary stages of the request however, that, in all his voluminous pleadings and verbal propositions, private
for his extradition. Yet, this fact cannot be taken to mean that he will not flee as the respondent has not asked for a remand. Evidently, even he realizes that there is
process moves forward to its conclusion, as he hears the footsteps of the requesting absolutely no need to rehear factual matters.Indeed, the inadequacy lies not in
government inching closer and closer. That he has not yet fled from the Philippines the factual presentation of Mr. Jimenez. Rather, it lies in
cannot be taken to mean that he will stand his ground and still be within reach of our his legal arguments. Remanding the case will not solve this utter lack of persuasion
government if and when it matters; that is, upon the resolution of the Petition for and strength in his legal reasoning.
Extradition.
In short, this Court -- as shown by this Decision and the spirited Concurring,
In any event, it is settled that bail may be applied for and granted by the trial court Separate and Dissenting Opinions written by the learned justices themselves -- has
at anytime after the applicant has been taken into custody and prior to judgment, even exhaustively deliberated and carefully passed upon all relevant questions in this
after bail has been previously denied. In the present case, the extradition court may case. Thus, a remand will not serve any useful purpose; it will only further delay these
continue hearing evidence on the application for bail, which may be granted in already very delayed proceedings,[74] which our Extradition Law requires to
accordance with the guidelines in this Decision. be summary in character. What we need now is prudent and deliberate speed, not
unnecessary and convoluted delay. What is needed is a firm decision on the merits,
not a circuitous cop-out.
Brief Refutation of Dissents
Then, there is also the suggestion that this Court is allegedly disregarding basic
freedoms when a case is one of extradition. We believe that this charge is not only
The proposal to remand this case to the extradition court, we believe, is totally baseless, but also unfair. Suffice it to say that, in its length and breath, this Decision
unnecessary; in fact, it is a cop-out. The parties -- in particular, Respondent Jimenez has taken special cognizance of the rights to due process and fundamental fairness of
-- have been given more than sufficient opportunity both by the trial court and this potential extraditees.
Court to discuss fully and exhaustively private respondents claim to bail. As already
stated, the RTC set for hearing not only petitioners application for an arrest warrant,
but also private respondents prayer for temporary liberty. Thereafter required by the Summation
RTC were memoranda on the arrest, then position papers on the application for bail,
both of which were separately filed by the parties.
As we draw to a close, it is now time to summarize and stress these ten points:
This Court has meticulously pored over the Petition, the Comment, the Reply, the
lengthy Memoranda and the Position Papers of both parties. Additionally, it has 1. The ultimate purpose of extradition proceedings is to determine whether the
patiently heard them in Oral Arguments, a procedure not normally observed in 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 heard. A subsequentopportunity is sufficient due to the flight risk involved. Indeed,
Treaty and Law; and whether the person sought is extraditable. The proceedings are available during the hearings on the petition and the answer is the full chance to be
intended merely to assist the requesting state in bringing the accused -- or the fugitive heard and to enjoy fundamental fairness that is compatible with the summary
who has illegally escaped -- back to its territory, so that the criminal process may nature of extradition.
proceed therein.
7. This Court will always remain a protector of human rights, a bastion of liberty, a
2. By entering into an extradition treaty, the Philippines is deemed to have bulwark of democracy and the conscience of society. But it is also well aware of the
reposed its trust in the reliability or soundness of the legal and judicial system of its limitations of its authority and of the need for respect for the prerogatives of the other
treaty partner, as well as in the ability and the willingness of the latter to grant basic co-equal and co-independent organs of government.
rights to the accused in the pending criminal case therein.
8. We realize that extradition is essentially an executive, not a judicial,
3. By nature then, extradition proceedings are not equivalent to a criminal case in responsibility arising out of the presidential power to conduct foreign relations and to
which guilt or innocence is determined. Consequently, an extradition case is not one implement treaties. Thus, the Executive Department of government has broad
in which the constitutional rights of the accused are necessarily available. It is more discretion in its duty and power of implementation.
akin, if at all, to a courts request to police authorities for the arrest of the accused who
9. On the other hand, courts merely perform oversight functions and exercise
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 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
person would escape again if given the opportunity.
these summary extradition proceedings become not only inutile but also sources of
4. Immediately upon receipt of the petition for extradition and its supporting international embarrassment due to our inability to comply in good faith with a treaty
documents, the judge shall make a prima facie finding whether the petition is partners simple request to return a fugitive. Worse, our country should not be
sufficient in form and substance, whether it complies with the Extradition Treaty and converted into a dubious haven where fugitives and escapees can unreasonably
Law, and whether the person sought is extraditable. The magistrate has discretion to delay, mummify, mock, frustrate, checkmate and defeat the quest for bilateral justice
require the petitioner to submit further documentation, or to personally examine the and international cooperation.
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 10. At bottom, extradition proceedings should be conducted with all
deliberate speed to determine compliance with the Extradition Treaty and Law;
him or her to answer and to appear at scheduled hearings on the petition.
and, while safeguarding basic individual rights, to avoid the
5. After being taken into custody, potential extraditees may apply for bail. Since legalistic contortions, delays and technicalities that may negate that purpose.
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, 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
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 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
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 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
each case.
States as well as our Extradition Law. No costs.
6. Potential extraditees are entitled to the rights to due process and to
SO ORDERED.
fundamental fairness. Due process does not always call for a prior opportunity to be
 Austria-Martinez, Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur. with Justices Melo and Santiago writing separate Dissents (343 SCRA 377, October
Davide, Jr., C.J., Mendoza, and Callejo, Sr., joins in the concurring opinion of 17, 2000).
Justice Carpio. [10]
Annex E of the Petition.
Bellosillo, J., see Separate Opinion.
Puno, J., see Separate Opinion. [11]
Annex M of the Petition.
Vitug, J., see Dissenting Opinion. [12]
Quisumbing, J., concur in the separate opinion of Justice Puno. Annex O (certified true xerox copy) of the Petition.
Ynares-Santiago, J., see Dissenting Opinion. [13]
The case was deemed submitted for resolution on July 3, 2002, upon receipt by
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., join in the Separate Opinion of Justice Ynares-Santiago. this Court of respondents Counter-Manifestation. Earlier, on September 3, 2001, this
Carpio, J., see concurring Opinion. Court received petitioners Memorandum signed by Undersecretary Ma. Merceditas N.
Gutierrez and State Counsel Claro B. Flores. Filed on August 23, 2001 was private
respondents Memorandum signed by Attys. Mario Luza Bautista, Nick Emmanuel C.
Villaluz and Brigette M. da Costa of Poblador Bautista and Reyes.
[1]
Rollo, p. 74. [14]
Petition, pp. 9-10; Rollo, pp. 10-11.
[2]
Id., pp. 122-125. [15]
During the Oral Argument on August 14, 2001, the Court asked the parties to
[3]
Presided by Judge Guillermo G. Purganan. discuss three issues: 1) the propriety of the filing of the Petition in this case before this
Court; 2) whether Mr. Mark Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before the
[4]
Order dated July 3, 2001, p. 4; Rollo, p. 125. issuance of a warrant for his arrest; and 3) whether the procedure followed by
[5] respondent judge in issuing the warrant of arrest and granting bail was correct.
322 SCRA 160, January 18, 2000; and 343 SCRA 377, October 17, 2000.
[16]
[6] Petition, p. 3; Rollo, p. 4.
Signed on November 13, 1994, and concurred in by the Philippine Senate on
November 29, 1995. [17]
Government of the United States of America, represented by the Philippine
[7] Department of Justice v. The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 47, and Nelson
In Civil Case No. 99-94684.
Marquez, CA-GR SP No. 61079, promulgated on May 7, 2001.
[8]
The 40-page Decision (322 SCRA 160, January 18, 2000) was penned by Justice [18]
Petition, pp. 3-4; Rollo, pp. 4-5.
Jose A. R. Melo with the concurrence of Justices Josue N. Bellosillo, Jose C. Vitug,
Santiago M. Kapunan, Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Fidel P. Purisima, Arturo B. Buena, [19]
Phil. Air Lines Employees Association v. Phil. Air Lines, Inc., 111 SCRA 215, 219,
Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and Sabino R. de Leon Jr. Dissenting were Chief Justice January 30, 1982; citing Central Bank v. Cloribel, 44 SCRA 307 April 11, 1972.
Hilario Davide Jr.; and Justices Reynato S. Puno, Vicente V. Mendoza, [20]
Artemio V. Panganiban, Bernardo P. Pardo and Minerva P. Reyes, with Justices Puno Progressive Development Corporation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 637,
and Panganiban writing separate Dissents. January 22, 1999.
[21]
[9]
Penned by Justice Puno and concurred in by Chief Justice Davide; and Justices Malonzo v. Zamora, GR No. 137718, July 27, 1999, citing cases.
Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Reyes and De Leon [22]
289 SCRA 624, April 24, 1998, per Martinez, J.
Jr. Dissenting were Justices Bellosillo, Melo, Vitug, Kapunan, Buena and Santiago,
[23]
190 SCRA 31, 38, September 24, 1990, per Fernan, CJ.
[24] [39]
Philippine National Bank v. Sayo Jr, 292 SCRA 202, 232, July 9, 1999, per Id., p. 545.
Davide, CJ, citing People v. Cuaresma, 172 SCRA 415, April 18, 1999; Defensor- [40]
Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 633, January 27, 1993; Manalo v. Gloria, 236 SCRA In line with the Philippine policy of cooperation and amity with all nations set forth
in Article II, Section 2, Constitution.
130, September 1, 1994. See also Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources, 347 SCRA 128, December 6, 2000; Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Zamora , [41]
The United States District Court, District of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada: In the
GR No. 142801-802, July 10, 2001. Matter of the Extradition of Charlie Atong Ang, a fugitive from the country of the
[25]
Agpalo, Statutory Construction, 1995 ed., p. 37, citing Macondray & Co. v. Philippines, [the court] has denied Mr. Angs motion for bail, per petitioners
Manifestation dated June 5, 2002.
Eustaquio, 64 Phil. 446, July 16, 1937; Roldan v. Villaroman, 69 Phil. 12, October 18,
1939; Torres v. Limjap, 56 Phil. 141, September 21, 1931; Manila Lodge No. 761 v. [42]
Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, supra.
Court of Appeals, 73 SCRA 162, September 30, 1976; People v. Concepcion, 44 Phil. [43]
126, November 29, 1922; Tanada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051, February 28, Wright v. Henkel, 190 U.S. 40, 62, March 23, 1903.
1957; Salaysay v. Castro, 98 Phil. 364, January 31, 1956. [44]
See footnote no. 41, Petition for Certiorari, p. 18; Rollo p. 19; Manifestation dated
[26]
Last Whereas clause of PD 1069. June 5, 2002.
[45]
[27]
See Whereas clause of PD 1069 and preamble of the RP-US Extradition Treaty. Persily, International Extradition and the Right to Bail, 34 Stan. J. Intl L. 407
(Summer, 1998).
[28]
Bassiouni, International Extradition, 1987 ed., p.68. [46]
Ibid.
[29]
In Rodriguez v. Comelec (259 SCRA 296, July 24, 1996), the Court defined fugitive [47]
from justice as one who flees after conviction to avoid punishment or who, after being 39 CJS 875, citing People v. Blair, 33 NYS 2d 183, 190, 191; Amerada Petroleum
charged, flees to avoid prosecution. Corporation v. Hester, 109 P. 2d 820, 821, 188 Okl. 394.
[48]
[30]
Bassiouni, supra, p. 21. Id.; citing Independent Life Ins. Co. v. Rodgers, 55 S.W. 2d 767, 165 Tenn. 447.
[49]
[31]
Id., p. 67. Petition for Extradition, pp. 2-3; Rollo pp. 49-50.
[50]
[32]
Shearer, Extradition in International Law, 1971 ed., pp. 19-20. Order dated July 3, 2001, p. 3; Rollo, 124.
[51]
[33]
Supra, p. 392, October 17, 2000, per Puno, J. In the questioned July 3, 2001 Order (p. 4; Rollo, p. 125), respondent judge
admitted that the Annexes of the Petition for Extradition had been received by the
[34]
Coquia, On Implementation of the US-RP Extradition Treaty, The Lawyers Review, court a quo on May 25, 2001; yet, in its Order dated May 23, 2001 (Rollo, p. 74), it
August 31, 2000, p. 4. already set for hearing the issuance of the warrant of arrest.
[35]
See Bassiouni, supra, p. 546; citing 221 U.S. 508, 512 (1910). [52]
See 9, PD 1069.
[36]
Supra. [53]
Bassiouni, International Extradition, supra, p. 87; citing 1 L.
[37]
Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, supra. Oppenheim, International Law, (8th ed., 1955), pp. 952-53.
[54]
[38] 280 SCRA 365, October 9, 1997.
Shearer, Extradition in International Law, 1971 ed., p. 157.
[55] [66]
Id., p. 381, per Panganiban, J. Coquia, On the Implementation of the US-RP Extradition Treaty, supra; citing Kelso
[56] v. US Department of State, 13 F Supp. 291 [DDC 1998].
247 SCRA 652, 680, per Puno, J.
[67]
[57] It states: If the person sought consents in writing to surrender to the Requesting
IbId.; citing Allado v. Diokno, 233 SCRA 192, May 5, 1994. State, the Requested State may surrender the person as expeditiously as possible
[58]
Prima facie finding, not probable cause, is the more precise terminology because without further proceedings.
an extradition case is not a criminal proceeding in which the latter phrase is [68]
1, Art. VIII, Constitution.
commonly used.
[69]
[59] 5, Art. VIII, Constitution.
SEC. 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception. All persons in custody shall be admitted
[70]
to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or released on recognizance as I.A. Cruz, Constitutional Law, 1998 ed., p. 98.
prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial [71]
Private respondent argues that the following cases -- In re Michell, 171 F. Rep.
Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial
Court, and (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not 289, June 30, 1909; United States v. Kirby, Brennan and Artt, 106 F. 3d. 855,
February 27, 1997 and 158 F. 3d. 462, October 9, 1998. Beaulieu v. Hartigan, 460 F.
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
Supp. 915, March 14, 1977; and 554 F. 2d 1, April 6, 1977 -- should be treated as
[60]
De la Camara v. Enage, 41 SCRA 1, 6, September 17, 1971, per examples of special circumstances. In our view, however, they are not applicable to
Fernando, J. (later CJ). this case due to factual differences. Hence we refrain from ruling on this argument of
[61] Jimenez.
18, Art. VII, Constitution.
[72]
[62] 324 SCRA 689, February 3, 2000, per Ynares-Santiago, J.
Paretti v. United States of America, 122 F. 3d. 758, May 6, 1997.-
[73]
[63] Id., pp. 700-702.
Garcia v. NLRC, GR No. 110494, November 18, 1996; Paat v. Court of Appeals,
[74]
January 10, 1997. The US request for extradition was dated June 16, 1999; and yet, to date, more
[64] than three years later, the Petition for Extradition is still languishing in the trial court.
See Central Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 220 SCRA 536, March 20,
1993.
[65]
Ibid. See also Busuego v. Court of Appeals, 304 SCRA 473, March 11, 1999.