Sec Justice 1

G.R. No.
139465 January 18, 2000

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, petitioner,
vs.
HON. RALPH C. LANTION, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 25, and MARK B. JIMENEZ, respondents.
MELO, J.:
The individual citizen is but a speck of particle or molecule vis-à-vis the vast
and overwhelming powers of government. His only guarantee against
oppression and tyranny are his fundamental liberties under the Bill of Rights
which shield him in times of need. The Court is now called to decide
whether to uphold a citizen's basic due process rights, or the government's
ironclad duties under a treaty. The bugle sounds and this Court must once
again act as the faithful guardian of the fundamental writ.
The petition at our doorstep is cast against the following factual backdrop:
On January 13, 1977, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential
Decree No. 1069 "Prescribing the Procedure for the Extradition of Persons
Who Have Committed Crimes in a Foreign Country". The Decree is founded
on: the doctrine of incorporation under the Constitution; the mutual concern
for the suppression of crime both in the state where it was committed and
the state where the criminal may have escaped; the extradition treaty with
the Republic of Indonesia and the intention of the Philippines to enter into
similar treaties with other interested countries; and the need for rules to
guide the executive department and the courts in the proper implementation
of said treaties.
On November 13, 1994, then Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon,
representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, signed in
Manila the "Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the Republic of
the Philippines and the Government of the United States of America"
(hereinafter referred to as the RP-US Extradition Treaty). The Senate, by way
of Resolution No. 11, expressed its concurrence in the ratification of said
treaty. It also expressed its concurrence in the Diplomatic Notes correcting
Paragraph (5)(a), Article 7 thereof (on the admissibility of the documents
Page 1
--
Bionic Reading® Faster. Better. More focused. Reading.
©2022, Bionic Reading AG. All rights reserved. Made in Switzerland. The Intellectual Property of Bionic Reading® is based on Patent, Trademark and Copyright Laws. bionic-reading.com.
accompanying an extradition request upon certification by the principal
diplomatic or consular officer of the requested state resident in the
Requesting State).
On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department
of Foreign Affairs U.S. Note Verbale No. 0522 containing a request for the
extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez to the United States.
Attached to the Note Verbale were the Grand Jury Indictment, the warrant of
arrest issued by the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, and
other supporting documents for said extradition. Based on the papers
submitted, private respondent appears to be charged in the United States
with violation of the following provisions of the United States Code (USC):
A) 18 USC 371 (Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United
States; two [2] counts; Maximum Penalty — 5 years on each count);
B) 26 USC 7201 (Attempt to evade or defeat tax; four [4] counts; Maximum
Penalty — 5 years on each count);
C) 18 USC 1343 (Fraud by wire, radio, or television; two [2] counts; Maximum
Penalty — 5 years on each count);
D) 18 USC 1001 (False statement or entries; six [6] counts; Maximum Penalty
— 5 years on each count);
E) 2 USC 441f (Election contributions in name of another; thirty-three [33]
counts; Maximum Penalty — less than one year).
(p. 14, Rollo.)
On the same day, petitioner issued Department Order No. 249 designating
and authorizing a panel of attorneys to take charge of and to handle the
case pursuant to Section 5(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1069. Accordingly,
the panel began with the "technical evaluation and assessment" of the
extradition request and the documents in support thereof. The panel found
that the "official English translation of some documents in Spanish were not
attached to the request and that there are some other matters that needed
to be addressed" (p. 15, Rollo).
Page 2
--
Pending evaluation of the aforestated extradition documents, private
respondent, through counsel, wrote a letter dated July 1, 1999 addressed to
petitioner requesting copies of the official extradition request from the U.S.
Government, as well as all documents and papers submitted therewith; and
that he be given ample time to comment on the request after he shall have
received copies of the requested papers. Private respondent also requested
that the proceedings on the matter be held in abeyance in the meantime.
Later, private respondent requested that preliminary, he be given at least a
copy of, or access to, the request of the United States Government, and
after receiving a copy of the Diplomatic Note, a period of time to amplify on
his request.
In response to private respondent's July 1, 1999 letter, petitioner, in a reply-
letter dated July 13, 1999 (but received by private respondent only on
August 4, 1999), denied the foregoing requests for the following reasons:
1. We find it premature to furnish you with copies of the extradition request
and supporting documents from the United States Government, pending
evaluation by this Department of the sufficiency of the extradition
documents submitted in accordance with the provisions of the extradition
treaty and our extradition law. Article 7 of the Extradition Treaty between the
Philippines and the United States enumerates the documentary
requirements and establishes the procedures under which the documents
submitted shall be received and admitted as evidence. Evidentiary
requirements under our domestic law are also set forth in Section 4 of P.D.
No. 1069.
Evaluation by this Department of the aforementioned documents is not a
preliminary investigation nor akin to preliminary investigation of criminal
cases. We merely determine whether the procedures and requirements
under the relevant law and treaty have been complied with by the
Requesting Government. The constitutionally guaranteed rights of the
accused in all criminal prosecutions are therefore not available.
It is only after the filing of the petition for extradition when the person
sought to be extradited will be furnished by the court with copies of the
Page 3
--
petition, request and extradition documents and this Department will not
pose any objection to a request for ample time to evaluate said documents.
Page 4
--

Sec Justice 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sec Justice 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sec Justice 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

139465 January 18, 2000

You might also like