EN BANC

!<urther ore respondent is directed to i ediately surrender to this Court his passport and the Bureau of I igration and %eportation is li*ewise directed to include the na e of the respondent in its ;old %eparture ?ist"#162 Essentially, the &etition prays for the lifting of the bail +rder, the cancellation of the bond, and the ta*ing of 3i ene8 into legal custody"

[G.R. No. 148571. September 24, 2002]

GOVERNMENT OF THE UN TE! ST"TES OF "MER #", repre$e%te& b' t(e )(*+*pp*%e !ep,rtme%t o- ./$t*0e, petitioner, vs. Ho%. GU 11ERMO G. )URG"N"N, Mor,+e$, ,%& )re$*&*%2 ./&2e, Re2*o%,+ Tr*,+ #o/rt o- M,%*+,, 3r,%0( 424 ,%& M"R5 3. . MENE6 ,.7.,. M"R O 3"T"#"N #RES)O, respondents. !E# )"NG"N 3"N, J.: In extradition proceedings, are prospective extraditees entitled to notice and hearing before warrants for their arrest can be issued? Equally i portant, are they entitled to the right to bail and provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending? In general, the answer to these two novel questions is !No"# $he explanation of and the reasons for, as well as the exceptionsto, this rule are laid out in this %ecision" S ON

T(e F,0t$ $his &etition is really a sequel to @' No" 0.>6() entitled Secretary of Justice v. Ralph C. Lantion.1)2 &ursuant to the existing '&AB= Extradition $reaty, 1(2 the Bnited =tates @overn ent, through diplo atic channels, sent to the &hilippine @overn ent Note Cerbale No" /)-- dated 3une 0(, 0>>>, supple ented by Note Nos" /)>D, /D-/ and /E/> and acco panied by duly authenticated docu ents requesting the extradition of ,ar* B" 3i ene8, also *nown as ,ario Batacan Crespo" Bpon receipt of the Notes and docu ents, the secretary of foreign affairs 4=<A5 trans itted the to the secretary of Fustice 4=+35 for appropriate action, pursuant to =ection ) of &residential %ecree 4&%5 No" 0/(>, also *nown as the Extradition ?aw" Bpon learning of the request for his extradition, 3i ene8 sought and was granted a $e porary 'estraining +rder 4$'+5 by the '$C of ,anila, Branch -)"1D2 $he $'+ prohibited the %epart ent of 3ustice 4%+35 fro filing with the '$C a petition for his extradition" $he validity of the $'+ was, however, assailed by the =+3 in a &etition before this Court in the said @' No" 0.>6()" Initially, the Court AA by a vote of >A( AA dis issed the &etition" $he =+3 was ordered to furnish private respondent copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers and to grant the latter a reasonable period within which to file a co ent and supporting evidence"
1E2

T(e #,$e Before us is a &etition for Certiorari under 'ule () of the 'ules of Court, see*ing to void and set aside the +rders dated ,ay -., -//0 102 and 3uly ., -//01-2 issued by the 'egional $rial Court 4'$C5 of ,anila, Branch 6-"1.2 $he first assailed +rder set for hearing petitioner7s application for the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of 'espondent ,ar* B" 3i ene8" $he second challenged +rder, on the other hand, directed the issuance of a warrant, but at the sa e ti e granted bail to 3i ene8" $he dispositive portion of the +rder reads as follows9 !:;E'E<+'E, in the light of the foregoing, the 1Court2 finds probable cause against respondent ,ar* 3i ene8" Accordingly let a :arrant for the arrest of the respondent be issued" Consequently and ta*ing into consideration =ection >, 'ule 006 of the 'evised 'ules of Cri inal &rocedure, this Court fixes the reasonable a ount of bail for respondent7s te porary liberty at +NE ,I??I+N &E=+= 4&hp 0,///,///"//5, the sa e to be paid in cash"

Acting on the ,otion for 'econsideration filed by the =+3, this Court issued its +ctober 0D, -/// 'esolution" 1>2 By an identical vote of >A( AA after three Fustices changed their votes AA it reconsidered and reversed its earlier %ecision" It held that private respondent was bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process" $his 'esolution has beco e final and executory" <inding no ore legal obstacle, the @overn ent of the Bnited =tates of A erica, represented by the &hilippine %+3, filed with the '$C on ,ay 0E, -//0, the appropriate &etition for Extradition which was doc*eted as Extradition Case No" /00>-/(0" $he &etition alleged, inter alia, that 3i ene8 was the subFect of an arrest warrant issued by the Bnited =tates %istrict Court for the =outhern %istrict of <lorida on April 0), 0>>>" $he warrant had been issued in connection with the following charges in Indict ent No" >>A//-E0 C'A=EI$G9 405 conspiracy to defraud the Bnited

=tates and to co it certain offenses in violation of $itle 0E B= Code =ection .D0H 4-5 tax evasion, in violation of $itle -( B= Code =ection D-/0H 4.5 wire fraud, in violation of $itle 0E B= Code =ections 0.6. and -H 465 false state ents, in violation of $itle 0E B= Code =ections 0//0 and -H and 4)5 illegal ca paign contributions, in violation of $itle - B= Code =ections 660b, 660f and 6.Dg4d5 and $itle 0E B= Code =ection -" In order to prevent the flight of 3i ene8, the &etition prayed for the issuance of an order for his !i ediate arrest# pursuant to =ection ( of &% No" 0/(>" Before the '$C could act on the &etition, 'espondent 3i ene8 filed before it an !Brgent ,anifestationIExA&arte ,otion,# 10/2 which prayed that petitioner7s application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing" In its assailed ,ay -., -//0 +rder, the '$C granted the ,otion of 3i ene8 and set the case for hearing on 3une ), -//0" In that hearing, petitioner anifested 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 sub it their respective e oranda" In his ,e orandu , 3i ene8 sought an alternative prayer9 that in case a warrant should issue, he be allowed to post bail in the a ount of &0//,///" $he alternative prayer of 3i ene8 was also set for hearing on 3une 0), -//0" $hereafter, the court below issued its questioned 3uly ., -//0 +rder, directing the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his te porary liberty at one illion pesos in cash" 1002 After he had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond, 3i ene8 was granted provisional liberty via the challenged +rder dated 3uly 6, -//0" 10-2 ;ence, this &etition"10.2

granting the prayer for bail and in allowing 3i ene8 to go on provisional liberty because9 J0" An extradition court has no power to authori8e bail, in the absence of any law that provides for such power" J-" =ection 0., Article III 4right to bail clause5 of the 0>ED &hilippine Constitution and =ection 6, 'ule 006 4Bail5 of the 'ules of Court, as a ended, which 1were2 relied upon, cannot be used as bases for allowing bail in extradition proceedings" J." $he presu ption is against proceedings leading to extradition" bail in extradition proceedings or

J6" +n the assu ption that bail is available in extradition proceedings or proceedings leading to extradition, bail is not a atter of right but only of discretion upon clear showing by the applicant of the existence of special circu stances" J)" Assu ing that bail is a atter of discretion in extradition proceedings, the public respondent received no evidence of Jspecial circu stances7 which ay Fustify release on bail" J(" $he ris* that 3i ene8 will flee is high, and no special circu stance exists that will engender a wellAfounded belief that he will not flee" JD" $he conditions attached to the grant of bail are ineffectual and do not ensure co pliance by the &hilippines with its obligations under the '&AB= Extradition $reaty" JE" $he Court of Appeals 'esolution pro ulgated on ,ay 0/, -//0 in the case entitled JEduardo T. Rodrigue et al. vs. The !on. "residing Judge, RTC, #ranch $%, &anila,' CAA@"'" =& No" (6)E>, relied upon by the public respondent in granting bail, had been recalled before the issuance of the subFect bail orders"7#1062 In su , the substantive questions that this Court will address are9 405 whether 3i ene8 is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant for his arrest can be issued, and 4-5 whether he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending" &reli inarily, we shall ta*e up the alleged pre aturity of the &etition for Certiorari arising fro petitioner7s failure to file a ,otion for 'econsideration in the '$C and to see* relief in the Court of Appeals 4CA5, instead of in this Court" 10)2 :e shall also preli inarily discuss five extradition postulates that will guide us in disposing of the substantive issues"

$$/e$ &etitioner presents the following issues for the consideration of this Court9 . !$he public respondent acted without or in excess of Furisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion a ounting to lac* or excess of Furisdiction in adopting a procedure of first hearing a potential extraditee before issuing an arrest warrant under =ection ( of &% No" 0/(>" . !$he public respondent acted without or in excess of Furisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion a ounting to lac* or excess of Furisdiction in

T(e #o/rt8$ R/+*%2 $he &etition is eritorious"

?i*ewise, this Court has allowed a direct invocation of its original Furisdiction to issue writs of certiorari when there are special and i portant reasons therefor"1-02 In (ortich v. Corona1--2we stated9 !1$2he =upre e Court has the full discretionary power to ta*e cogni8ance of the petition filed directly 1before2 it if co pelling reasons, or the nature and i portance of the issues raised, warrant" $his has been the Fudicial policy to be observed and which has been reiterated in subsequent cases, na ely9 )y vs. Contreras, et. al., Torres vs. *rran , #ercero vs. +e ,u -an, and, *dvincula vs. Legaspi, et" al" As we have further stated inCuares-a9 Jx x x" A direct invocation of the =upre e Court7s original Furisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and i portant reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition" $his is established policy" x x x"7 !&ursuant to said Fudicial policy, we resolve to ta*e pri ary Furisdiction over the present petition in the interest of speedy Fustice and to avoid future litigations so as to pro ptly put an end to the present controversy which, as correctly observed by petitioners, has spar*ed national interest because of the agnitude of the proble created by the issuance of the assailed resolution" ,oreover, x x x requiring the petitioners to file their petition first with the Court of Appeals would only result in a waste of ti e and oney" !$hat the Court has the power to set aside its own rules in the higher interests of Fustice is wellAentrenched in our Furisprudence" :e reiterate what we said in "ic on vs. Court of *ppeals.1-.2 JBe it re e bered that rules of procedure are but ere tools designed to facilitate the attain ent of Fustice" $heir strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than pro ote substantial Fustice, ust always be avoided" $i e and again, this Court has suspended its own rules and excepted a particular case fro their operation whenever the higher interests of Fustice so require" In the instant petition, we forego a lengthy disquisition of the proper procedure that should have been ta*en by the parties involved and proceed directly to the erits of the case"7 In a nu ber of other exceptional cases,1-62 we held as follows9 !$his Court has original Furisdiction, concurrent with that of 'egional $rial Courts and the Court of Appeals, over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, -anda-us, quo /arranto and habeas corpus, and we entertain direct resort to us in cases where special and i portant reasons or exceptional and co pelling circu stances Fustify the sa e"#

)re+*m*%,r' M,tter$ Alleged Prematurity of Present Petition &etitioner sub its the following Fustifications for not filing a ,otion for 'econsideration in the Extradition Court9 !405 the issues were fully considered by such court after requiring the parties to sub it their respective e oranda and position papers on the atter and thus, the filing of a reconsideration otion would serve no useful purposeH 4-5 the assailed orders are a patent nullity, absent factual and legal basis thereforH and 4.5 the need for relief is extre ely urgent, as the passage of sufficient ti e would give 3i ene8 a ple opportunity to escape and avoid extraditionH and 465 the issues raised are purely of law"# 10(2 <or resorting directly to this Court instead of the CA, petitioner sub its the following reasons9 !405 even if the petition is lodged with the Court of Appeals and such appellate court ta*es cogni8ance of the issues and decides the , the parties would still bring the atter to this ;onorable Court to have the issues resolved once and for all 1and2 to have a binding precedent that all lower courts ought to followH 4-5 the ;onorable Court of Appeals had in one case10D2 ruled on the issue by disallowing bail but the court below refused to recogni8e the decision as a Fudicial guide and all other courts ight li*ewise adopt the sa e attitude of refusalH and 4.5 there are pending issues on bail both in the extradition courts and the Court of Appeals, which, unless guided by the decision that this ;onorable Court will render in this case, would resolve to grant bail in favor of the potential extraditees and would give the opportunity to flee and thus, cause adverse effect on the ability of the &hilippines to co ply with its obligations under existing extradition treaties"#10E2 As a general rule, a petition for certiorari before a higher court will not prosper unless the inferior court has been given, through a otion for reconsideration, a chance to correct the errors i puted to it" $his rule, though, has certain exceptions9 405 when the issue raised is purely of law, 4-5 when public interest is involved, or 4.5 in case of urgency" 10>2 As a fourth exception, the Court has also ruled that the filing of a otion for reconsideration before avail ent of the re edy of certiorari is not a sine qua non, when the questions raised are the sa e as those that have already been squarely argued and exhaustively passed upon by the lower court"1-/2 Aside fro being of this nature, the issues in the present case also involve pure questions of law that are of public interest" ;ence, a otion for reconsideration ay be dispensed with"

In the interest of Fustice and to settle once and for all the i portant issue of bail in extradition proceedings, we dee it best to ta*e cogni8ance of the present case" =uch proceedings constitute a atter of first i pression over which there is, as yet, no local Furisprudence to guide lower courts" Five Postulates of Extradition $he substantive issues raised in this case require an interpretation or construction of the treaty and the law on extradition" A cardinal rule in the interpretation of a treaty or a law is to ascertain and give effect to its intent"1-)2 =ince &% 0/(> is intended as a guide for the i ple entation of extradition treaties to which the &hilippines is a signatory, 1-(2 understanding certain postulates of extradition will aid us in properly deciding the issues raised here" 1. E9tr,&*t*o% $ , M,:or %$tr/me%t -or t(e S/ppre$$*o% o#r*me. (irst, extradition treaties are entered into for the purpose of suppressing cri e1-D2 by facilitating the arrest and the custodial transfer1-E2 of a fugitive1->2 fro one state to the other" :ith the advent of easier and faster eans of international travel, the flight of affluent cri inals fro one country to another for the purpose of co itting cri e and evading prosecution has beco e ore frequent" Accordingly, govern ents are adFusting their ethods of dealing with cri inals and cri es that transcend international boundaries" $oday, !a aFority of nations in the world co unity have co e to loo* upon extradition as the -a0or effective instru-ent of international co1 operation in the suppression of cri-e"#1./2 It is the only regular syste that has been devised to return fugitives to the Furisdiction of a court co petent to try the in accordance with unicipal and international law"
1.02

!$he &hilippines also has a national interest to help in suppressing cri es and one way to do it is to facilitate the extradition of persons covered by treaties duly entered 1into2 by our govern ent" ,ore and ore, cri es are beco ing the concern of one world" ?aws involving cri es and cri e prevention are undergoing universali8ation" +ne anifest purpose of this trend towards globali8ation is to deny easy refuge to a cri inal whose activities threaten the peace and progress of civili8ed countries" It is to the great interest of the &hilippines to be part of this irreversible ove ent in light of its vulnerability to cri es, especially transnational cri es"# Indeed, in this era of globali8ation, easier and faster international travel, and an expanding ring of international cri es and cri inals, we cannot afford to be an isolationist state" :e need to cooperate with other states in order to i prove our chances of suppressing cri e in our own country" 2. T(e Re;/e$t*%2 t(e "00/$e& St,te <*++ "00or& !/e )ro0e$$ to

Second, an extradition treaty presupposes that both parties thereto have exa ined, and that both accept and trust, each other7s legal syste and Fudicial process"1.62 ,ore pointedly, our duly authori8ed representative7s signature on an extradition treaty signifies our confidence in the capacity and the willingness of the other state to protect the basic rights of the person sought to be extradited" 1.)2 $hat signature signifies our full faith that the accused will be given, upon extradition to the requesting state, all relevant and basic rights in the cri inal proceedings that will ta*e place thereinH otherwise, the treaty would not have been signed, or would have been directly attac*ed for its unconstitutionality" =. T(e )ro0ee&*%2$ "re S/* Ge%er*$ Third, as pointed out in Secretary of Justice v. Lantion,1.(2 extradition proceedings are not cri inal in nature" In cri inal proceedings, the constitutional rights of the accused are at foreH in extradition which is sui generis 11 in a class by itself AA they are not" !An extradition 1proceeding2 is sui generis" It is not a cri inal proceeding which will call into operation all the rights of an accused as guaranteed by the Bill of 'ights" $o begin with, the process of extradition does not involve the deter ination of the guilt or innocence of an accused" ;is guilt or innocence will be adFudged in the court of the state where he will be extradited" ;ence, as a rule, constitutional rights that are only relevant to deter ine the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot be invo*ed by an extraditee x x x" xxx xxx xxx

!An i portant practical effect x x x of the recognition of the principle that cri inals should be restored to a Furisdiction co petent to try and punish the is that the nu ber of cri inals see*ing refuge abroad will be reduced" <or to the extent that efficient eans of detection and the threat of punish ent play a significant role in the deterrence of cri e within the territorial li its of a =tate, so the existence of effective extradition arrange ents and the consequent certainty of return to the locus delicti co--issi play a corresponding role in the deterrence of flight abroad in order to escape the consequence of cri e" x x x" <ro an absence of extradition arrange ents flight abroad by the ingenious cri inal receives direct encourage ent and thus indirectly does the co ission of cri e itself"#1.-2 In Secretary v. Lantion1..2 we explained9

!$here are other differences between an extradition proceeding and a cri inal proceeding" An extradition proceeding is su ary in nature while cri inal proceedings involve a fullAblown trial" In contradistinction to a

cri inal proceeding, the rules of evidence in an extradition proceeding allow ad ission of evidence under less stringent standards" In ter s of the quantu of evidence to be satisfied, a cri inal case requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for conviction while a fugitive ay be ordered extradited Jupon showing of the existence of a pri a facie case"7 <inally, unli*e in a cri inal case where Fudg ent beco es executory upon being rendered final, in an extradition proceeding, our courts ay adFudge an individual extraditable but the &resident has the final discretion to extradite hi " $he Bnited =tates adheres to a si ilar practice whereby the =ecretary of =tate exercises wide discretion in balancing the equities of the case and the de ands of the nation7s foreign relations before a*ing the ulti ate decision to extradite"# @iven the foregoing, it is evident that the extradition court is not called upon to ascertain the guilt or the innocence of the person sought to be extradited"1.D2 =uch deter ination during the extradition proceedings will only result in needless duplication and delay" Extradition is erely a easure of international Fudicial assistance through which a person charged with or convicted of a cri e is restored to a Furisdiction with the best clai to try that person" It is not part of the function of the assisting authorities to enter into questions that are the prerogative of that Furisdiction"1.E2$he ulti-ate purpose of extradition proceedings in court is only to deter-ine /hether the extradition request co-plies /ith the Extradition Treaty, and /hether the person sought is extraditable "1.>2 4. #omp+*,%0e S(,++ 3e *% Goo& F,*t(. (ourth, our executive branch of govern ent voluntarily entered into the Extradition $reaty, and our legislative branch ratified it" ;ence, the $reaty carries the presu ption that its i ple entation will serve the national interest" <ulfilling our obligations under the Extradition $reaty pro otes co ity16/2with the requesting state" +n the other hand, failure to fulfill our obligations thereunder paints a bad i age of our country before the world co unity" =uch failure would discourage other states fro entering into treaties with us, particularly an extradition treaty that hinges on reciprocity"1602 Cerily, we are bound by pacta sunt servanda to co ply in good faith with our obligations under the $reaty" 16-2 $his principle requires that we deliver the accused to the requesting country if the conditions precedent to extradition, as set forth in the $reaty, are satisfied" In other words, !1t2he de anding govern ent, when it has done all that the treaty and the law require it to do, is entitled to the delivery of the accused on the issue of the proper warrant, and the other govern ent is under obligation to a*e the surrender"#16.2 Accordingly, the &hilippines ust be ready and in a position to deliver the accused, should it be found proper" 5. T(ere $ ,% U%&er+'*%2 R*$7 o- F+*2(t

(ifth, persons to be extradited are presu ed to be flight ris*s" $his pri a facie presu ption finds reinforce ent in the experience 1662 of the executive branch9 nothing short of confine ent can ensure that the accused will not flee the Furisdiction of the requested state in order to thwart their extradition to the requesting state" $he present extradition case further validates the pre ise 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 sub it to trial in the requesting country" 16)2 &rior acts of herein respondent AA 405 leaving the requesting state right before the conclusion of his indict ent proceedings thereH and 4-5 re aining in the requested state despite learning that the requesting state is see*ing his return and that the cri es he is charged with are bailable AA eloquently spea* of his aversion to the processes in the requesting state, as well as his predisposition to avoid the at all cost" $hese circu stances point to an everApresent, underlying high ris* of flight" ;e has de onstrated that he has the capacity and the will to flee" ;aving fled once, what is there to stop hi , given sufficient opportunity, fro fleeing a second ti e?

F*r$t S/b$t,%t*>e $$/e? Is Respondent Entitled to Notice and earing !efore t"e Issuance of a #arrant of Arrest$ &etitioner contends that the procedure adopted by the '$C AAinfor ing the accused, a fugitive fro Fustice, that an Extradition &etition has been filed against hi , and that petitioner is see*ing his arrest AA gives hi notice to escape and to avoid extradition" ,oreover, petitioner pleads that such procedure ay set a dangerous precedent, in that those sought to be extradited AA including terrorists, ass urderers and war cri inals AA ay invo*e it in future extradition cases" +n the other hand, 'espondent 3i ene8 argues that he should not be hurriedly and arbitrarily deprived of his constitutional right to liberty without due process" ;e further asserts that there is as yet no specific law or rule setting forth the procedure prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest, after the petition for extradition has been filed in courtH ergo, the for ulation of that procedure is within the discretion of the presiding Fudge" Both parties cite =ection ( of &% 0/(> in support of their argu ents" It states9 !=EC" (" 2ssuance of Su--ons3 Te-porary *rrest3 !earing, Service of 4otices"A 405 I ediately upon receipt of the petition, the presiding Fudge of the court shall, as soon as practicable, su on the accused to appear and to answer the petition on the day and hour fixed in the order" 1;2e ay *$$/e , @,rr,%t -or t(e *mme&*,te ,rre$t o- t(e ,00/$e& @(*0( m,' be $er>e& ,%' @(ere @*t(*% t(e )(*+*pp*%e$ *- *t ,ppe,r$ to

t(e pre$*&*%2 :/&2e t(,t t(e *mme&*,te ,rre$t ,%& tempor,r' &ete%t*o% o- t(e ,00/$e& @*++ be$t $er>e t(e e%&$ o- :/$t*0e " Bpon receipt of the answer, or should the accused after having received the su ons fail to answer within the ti e fixed, the presiding Fudge shall hear the case or set another date for the hearing thereof" !4-5 $he order and notice as well as a copy of the warrant of arrest, if issued, shall be pro ptly served each upon the accused and the attorney having charge of the case"# 4E phasis ours5 %oes this provision sanction '$C 3udge &urganan7s act of i ediately setting for hearing the issuance of a warrant of arrest? :e rule in the negative" 1. O% t(e 3,$*$ o- t(e E9tr,&*t*o% 1,@ It is significant to note that =ection ( of &% 0/(>, our Extradition ?aw, uses the word !i ediate# to qualify the arrest of the accused" $his qualification would be rendered nugatory by setting for hearing the issuance of the arrest warrant" ;earing entails sending notices to the opposing parties,16(2 receiving facts and argu ents16D2 fro the ,16E2 and giving the ti e to prepare and present such facts and argu ents" Arrest subsequent to a hearing can no longer be considered !i ediate"# $he law could not have intended the word as a ere superfluity but, on the whole, as a eans of i parting a sense of urgency and swiftness in the deter ination of whether a warrant of arrest should be issued" By using the phrase !if it appears,# the law further conveys that accuracy is not as i portant as speed at such early stage" $he trial court is not expected to a*e an exhaustive deter ination to ferret out the true and actual situation, i ediately upon the filing of the petition" <ro the *nowledge and the aterial then available to it, the court is expected erely to get a good first i pression AA a pri-a facie finding AA sufficient to a*e a speedy initial deter ination as regards the arrest and detention of the accused" Attached to the &etition for Extradition, with a Certificate of Authentication a ong others, were the following9 405 Annex ;, the Affidavit executed on ,ay -(, 0>>> by ,r" ,ichael E" =avage AA trial attorney in the Ca paign <inancing $as* <orce of the Cri inal %ivision of the B= %epart ent of 3usticeH 4-5 Annexes ; to @, evidentiary Appendices of various exhibits that constituted evidence of the cri es charged in the Indict ent, with Exhibits 0 to 0-/ 4duly authenticated exhibits that constituted evidence of the cri es charged in the Indict ent5H 4.5 Annex BB, the Exhibit I !Appendix of :itness 1excerpts2 =tate ents 'eferenced in the Affidavit of Angela Byers# and enclosed =tate ents in two volu esH 465 Annex @@, the Exhibit 3 !$able of Contents for =upple ental Evidentiary Appendix# with enclosed Exhibits 0-0 to 0.-H and 4)5 Annex ,,, the Exhibit ? !Appendix of :itness 1excerpts2 =tate ents 'eferenced in the Affidavit of Betty =teward# and enclosed =tate ents in two volu es"
16>2

It is evident that respondent Fudge could have already gotten an i pression fro these records adequate for hi to a*e an initial deter ination of whether the accused was so eone who should i ediately be arrested in order to !best serve the ends of Fustice"# ;e could have deter ined whether such facts and circu stances existed as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that the extradition request was pri a facie eritorious" In point of fact, he actually concluded fro these supporting docu ents that !probable cause# did exist" In the second questioned +rder, he stated9 !In the instant petition, the docu ents sent by the B= @overn ent in support of 1its2 request for extradition of herein respondent are enough to convince the Court of the existence of probable cause to proceed with the hearing against the extraditee"#1)/2 :e stress that the pri a facie existence of probable cause for hearing the petition and, a priori, for issuing an arrest warrant was already evident fro the &etition itself and its supporting docu ents" ;ence, after having already deter ined therefro that a pri-a facie finding did exist, respondent Fudge gravely abused his discretion when he set the atter for hearing upon otion of 3i ene8"1)02 ,oreover, the law specifies that the court sets a hearing upon receipt of the answer or upon failure of the accused to answer after receiving the su ons" In connection with the atter of i ediate arrest, however, the word !hearing# is notably absent fro the provision" Evidently, had the holding of a hearing at that stage been intended, the law could have easily so provided" It also bears e phasi8ing at this point that extradition proceedings are su ary1)-2in nature" ;ence, the silence of the ?aw and the $reaty leans to the ore reasonable interpretation that there is no intention to punctuate with a hearing every little step in the entire proceedings" !It is ta*en for granted that the contracting parties intend so ething reasonable and so ething not inconsistent with generally recogni8ed principles of International ?aw, nor with previous treaty obligations towards third =tates" If, therefore, the eaning of a treaty is a biguous, the reasonable eaning is to be preferred to the unreasonable, the ore reasonable to the less reasonable x x x "#1).2 Cerily, as argued by petitioner, sending to persons sought to be extradited a notice of the request for their arrest and setting it for hearing at so e future date would give the a ple opportunity to prepare and execute an escape" Neither the $reaty nor the ?aw could have intended that consequence, for the very purpose of both would have been defeated by the escape of the accused fro the requested state" 2. O% t(e 3,$*$ o- t(e #o%$t*t/t*o%

Even =ection - of Article III of our Constitution, which is invo*ed by 3i ene8, does not require a notice or a hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest" It provides9 !=ec" -" $he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and sei8ures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be deter ined personally by the Fudge after exa ination under oath or affir ation of the co plainant and the witnesses he ay produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei8ed"# $o deter ine probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants, the Constitution itself requires only the exa ination AA under oath or affir ation AA of co-plainants and the /itnesses they -ay produce" $here is no require ent to notify and hear the accused before the issuance of warrants of arrest" In !o v. "eople1)62 and in all the cases cited therein, never was a Fudge required to go to the extent of conducting a hearing Fust for the purpose of personally deter ining probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest" All we required was that the !Fudge ust have sufficient supporting docu ents upon which to a*e his independent Fudg ent, or at the very least, upon which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause"#1))2 In 5ebb v. +e Leon,1)(2 the Court categorically stated that a Fudge was not supposed to conduct a hearing before issuing a warrant of arrest9 !Again, we stress that before issuing warrants of arrest, Fudges erely deter ine personally the probability, not the certainty of guilt of an accused" In doing so, 0udges do not conduct a de novo hearing to deter-ine the existence of probable cause. $hey Fust personally review the initial deter ination of the prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidence"# At ost, in cases of clear insufficiency of evidence on record, Fudges erely further exa ine co-plainants and their witnesses"1)D2 In the present case, validating the act of respondent Fudge and instituting the practice of hearing the accused and his witnesses at this early stage would be discordant with the rationale for the entire syste " If the accused were allowed to be heard and necessarily to present evidence during the pri-a facie deter ination for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, what would stop hi fro presenting his entire plethora of defenses at this stage AA if he so desires AA in his effort to negate a pri-a facie finding? =uch a procedure could convert the deter ination of a pri a facie case into a fullAblown trial of the entire proceedings and possibly a*e trial of the ain case superfluous" $his scenario is also anathe a to the su ary nature of extraditions"

$hat the case under consideration is an extradition and not a cri inal action is not sufficient to Fustify the adoption of a set of procedures ore protective of the accused" If a different procedure were called for at all, a ore restrictive one AA not the opposite AA would be Fustified in view of respondent7s de onstrated predisposition to flee" =ince this is a atter of first i pression, we dee the proper procedure9 it wise to restate

Bpon receipt of a petition for extradition and its supporting docu ents, the Fudge ust study the and a*e, as soon as possible, a pri-a facie finding whether 4a5 they are sufficient in for and substance, 4b5 they show co pliance with the Extradition $reaty and ?aw, and 4c5 the person sought is extraditable" At his discretion, the Fudge ay require the sub ission of further docu entation or ay personally exa ine the affiants and witnesses of the petitioner" If, in spite of this study and exa ination, no pri-a facie finding1)E2 is possible, the petition ay be dis issed at the discretion of the Fudge" +n the other hand, if the presence of a pri a facie case is deter ined, then the agistrate ust i ediately issue a warrant for the arrest of the extraditee, who is at the sa e ti e su oned to answer the petition and to appear at scheduled su ary hearings" &rior to the issuance of the warrant, the Fudge ust not infor or notify the potential extraditee of the pendency of the petition, lest the latter be given the opportunity to escape and frustrate the proceedings" In our opinion, the foregoing procedure will !best serve the ends of Fustice# in extradition cases"

Se0o%& S/b$t,%t*>e $$/e? Is Respondent Entitled to !ail$ Article III, =ection 0. of the Constitution, is worded as follows9 !Art" III, =ec" 0." All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recogni8ance as ay be provided by law" $he right to bail shall not be i paired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended" Excessive bail shall not be required"# 'espondent ,ar* B" 3i ene8 aintains that this constitutional provision secures the right to bail of all persons, including those sought to be extradited" =upposedly, the only exceptions are the ones charged with offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua, when evidence of guilt is strong" ;e also alleges the relevance to the present case of =ection 6 1)>2 of 'ule 006 of the 'ules of Court which, insofar as practicable and consistent

with the su ary nature of extradition proceedings, shall also apply according to =ection > of &% 0/(>" +n the other hand, petitioner clai s that there is no provision in the &hilippine Constitution granting the right to bail to a person who is the subFect of an extradition request and arrest warrant" Extradition %ifferent from &rdinary 'riminal Proceedings :e agree with petitioner" As suggested by the use of the word !conviction,# the constitutional provision on bail quoted above, as well as =ection 6 of 'ule 006 of the 'ules of Court, applies only when a person has been arrested and detained for violation of &hilippine cri inal laws" It does not apply to extradition proceedings, because extradition courts do not render Fudg ents of conviction or acquittal" ,oreover, the constitutional right to bail !flows fro the presu ption of innocence in favor of every accused who should not be subFected to the loss of freedo as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt"#1(/2 It follows that the constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a case li*e extradition, where the presu ption of innocence is not at issue" $he provision in the Constitution stating that the !right to bail shall not be i paired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended# does not detract fro the rule that the constitutional right to bail is available only in cri inal proceedings" It ust be noted that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus finds application !only to persons Fudicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion"# 1(02 ;ence, the second sentence in the constitutional provision on bail erely e phasi8es the right to bail in cri inal proceedings for the afore entioned offenses" It cannot be ta*en to ean that the right is available even in extradition proceedings that are not cri inal in nature" $hat the offenses for which 3i ene8 is sought to be extradited are bailable in the Bnited =tates is not an argu ent to grant hi one in the present case" $o stress, extradition proceedings are separate and distinct fro the trial for the offenses for which he is charged" ;e should apply for bail before the courts trying the cri inal cases against hi , not before the extradition court" No (iolation of %ue Process 'espondent 3i ene8 cites the foreign case "aretti1(-2 in arguing that, constitutionally, !1n2o one shall be deprived of x x x liberty x x x without due process of law"# Contrary to his contention, his detention prior to the conclusion of the extradition proceedings does not a ount to a violation of his right to due process" :e iterate the fa iliar doctrine that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard1(.2 but, at the sa e ti e, point out that the doctrine does not always call for a prior opportunity to be heard"1(62 :here the circu stances AA such as those present in an extradition case AA call for

it, a subsequent opportunity to be heard is enough" 1()2 In the present case, respondent will be given full opportunity to be heard subsequently, when the extradition court hears the &etition for Extradition" ;ence, there is no violation of his right to due process and funda ental fairness" Contrary to the contention of 3i ene8, we find no arbitrariness, either, in the i ediate deprivation of his liberty prior to his being heard" $hat his arrest and detention will not be arbitrary is sufficiently ensured by 405 the %+37s filing in court the &etition with its supporting docu ents after a deter ination that the extradition request eets the require ents of the law and the relevant treatyH 4-5 the extradition Fudge7s independent pri a facie deter ination that his arrest will best serve the ends of Fustice before the issuance of a warrant for his arrestH and 4.5 his opportunity, once he is under the court7s custody, to apply for bail as an exception to the noAinitialA bail rule" It is also worth noting that before the B= govern ent requested the extradition of respondent, proceedings had already been conducted in that country" But because he left the Furisdiction of the requesting state before those proceedings could be co pleted, it was hindered fro continuing with the due processes prescribed under its laws" ;is invocation of due process now has thus beco e hollow" ;e already had that opportunity in the requesting stateH yet, instead of ta*ing it, he ran away" In this light, would it be proper and Fust for the govern ent to increase the ris* of violating its treaty obligations in order to accord 'espondent 3i ene8 his personal liberty in the span of ti e that it ta*es to resolve the &etition for Extradition? ;is supposed i ediate deprivation of liberty without the due process that he had previously shunned pales against the govern ent7s interest in fulfilling its Extradition $reaty obligations and in cooperating with the world co unity in the suppression of cri e" Indeed, !1c2onstitutional liberties do not exist in a vacuu H the due process rights accorded to individuals ust be carefully balanced against exigent and palpable govern ent interests"# 1((2 $oo, we cannot allow our country to be a haven for fugitives, cowards and wea*lings who, instead of facing the consequences of their actions, choose to run and hide" ;ence, it would not be good policy to increase the ris* of violating our treaty obligations if, through overprotection or excessively liberal treat ent, persons sought to be extradited are able to evade arrest or escape fro our custody" In the absence of any provision AA in the Constitution, the law or the treaty AA expressly guaranteeing the right to bail in extradition proceedings, adopting the practice of not granting the bail, as a general rule, would be a step towards deterring fugitives fro co ing to the &hilippines to hide fro or evade their prosecutors" $he denial of bail as a atter of course in extradition cases falls into place with and gives life to Article 061(D2 of the $reaty, since this practice would encourage the accused to voluntarily surrender to the requesting state to cut short their detention here" ?i*ewise, their detention pending the resolution of extradition proceedings would fall into place with the

e phasis of the Extradition ?aw on the su ary nature of extradition cases and the need for their speedy disposition"

residents" :e are not persuaded" In "eople v. Jalos0os,1D-2 the Court has already debun*ed the disenfranchise ent argu ent when it ruled thus9 !:hen the voters of his district elected the accusedAappellant to Congress, they did so with full awareness of the li itations on his freedo of action" $hey did so with the *nowledge that he could achieve only such legislative results which he could acco plish within the confines of prison" $o give a ore drastic illustration, if voters elect a person with full *nowledge that he is suffering fro a ter inal illness, they do so *nowing that at any ti e, he ay no longer serve his full ter in office" !In the ulti ate analysis, the issue before us boils down to a question of constitutional equal protection" !$he Constitution guarantees9 Jx x x nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of laws"7 $his si ply eans that all persons si ilarly situated shall be treated ali*e both in rights enFoyed and responsibilities i posed" $he organs of govern ent ay not show any undue favoritis or hostility to any person" Neither partiality nor preFudice shall be displayed" !%oes being an elective official result in a substantial distinction that allows different treat ent? Is being a Congress an a substantial differentiation which re oves the accusedAappellant as a prisoner fro the sa e class as all persons validly confined under law? !$he perfor ance of legiti ate and even essential duties by public officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly 1fro 2 prison" $he duties i posed by the J andate of the people7 are ultifarious" $he accusedAappellant asserts that the duty to legislate ran*s highest in the hierarchy of govern ent" $he accusedAappellant is only one of -)/ e bers of the ;ouse of 'epresentatives, not to ention the -6 e bers of the =enate, charged with the duties of legislation" Congress continues to function well in the physical absence of one or a few of its e bers" %epending on the exigency of @overn ent that has to be addressed, the &resident or the =upre e Court can also be dee ed the highest for that particular duty" $he i portance of a function depends on the need for its exercise" $he duty of a other to nurse her infant is ost co pelling under the law of nature" A doctor with unique s*ills has the duty to save the lives of those with a particular affliction" An elective governor has to serve provincial constituents" A police officer ust aintain peace and order" Never has the call of a particular duty lifted a prisoner into a different classification fro those others who are validly restrained by law" !A strict scrutiny of classifications is essential lest1,2 wittingly or otherwise, insidious discri inations are ade in favor of or against groups or types of individuals"

E90ept*o%$ to t(e ANo 3,*+B R/+e $he rule, we repeat, is that bail is not a atter of right in extradition cases" ;owever, the Fudiciary has the constitutional duty to curb grave abuse of discretion1(E2 and tyranny, as well as the power to pro ulgate rules to protect and enforce constitutional rights"1(>2 <urther ore, we believe that the right to due process is broad enough to include the grant of basic fairness to extraditees" Indeed, the right to due process extends to the !life, liberty or property# of every person" It is !dyna ic and resilient, adaptable to every situation calling for its application"# 1D/2 Accordingly and to best serve the ends of Fustice, we believe and so hold that, after a potential extraditee has been arrested or placed under the custody of the law, bail ay be applied for and granted as an exception, only upon a clear and convincing showing 405 that, once granted bail, the applicant will not be a flight ris* or a danger to the co unityH and 4-5 that there exist special, hu anitarian and co pelling circu stances1D02 including, as a atter of reciprocity, those cited by the highest court in the requesting state when it grants provisional liberty in extradition cases therein" =ince this exception has no express or specific statutory basis, and since it is derived essentially fro general principles of Fustice and fairness, the applicant bears the burden of proving the above twoAtiered require ent with clarity, precision and e phatic forcefulness" $he Court reali8es that extradition is basically an executive, not a Fudicial, responsibility arising fro the presidential power to conduct foreign relations" In its barest concept, it parta*es of the nature of police assistance a ongst states, which is not nor ally a Fudicial prerogative" ;ence, any intrusion by the courts into the exercise of this power should be characteri8ed by caution, so that the vital international and bilateral interests of our country will not be unreasonably i peded or co pro ised" In short, while this Court is ever protective of !the sporting idea of fair play,# it also recogni8es the li its of its own prerogatives and the need to fulfill international obligations" Along this line, 3i ene8 contends that there are special circu stances that are co pelling enough for the Court to grant his request for provisional release on bail" :e have carefully exa ined these circu stances and shall now discuss the " 1. "++e2e& !*$e%-r,%0(*$eme%t :hile his extradition was pending, 'espondent 3i ene8 was elected as a e ber of the ;ouse of 'epresentatives" +n that basis, he clai s that his detention will disenfranchise his ,anila district of (//,///

!$he Court cannot validate badges of inequality" $he necessities i posed by public welfare ay Fustify exercise of govern ent authority to regulate even if thereby certain groups ay plausibly assert that their interests are disregarded" !:e, therefore, find that election to the position of Congress an is not a reasonable classification in cri inal law enforce ent" $he functions and duties of the office are not substantial distinctions which lift hi fro the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedo and restricted in liberty of ove ent" ?awful arrest and confine ent are ger ane to the purposes of the law and apply to all those belonging to the sa e class"# 1D.2 It ust be noted that even before private respondent ran for and won a congressional seat in ,anila, it was already of public *nowledge that the Bnited =tates was requesting his extradition" ;ence, his constituents were or should have been prepared for the consequences of the extradition case against their representative, including his detention pending the final resolution of the case" &re ises considered and in line with Jalos0os, we are constrained to rule against his clai that his election to public office is by itself a co pelling reason to grant hi bail" 2. "%t*0*p,te& !e+,' 'espondent 3i ene8 further contends that because the extradition proceedings are lengthy, it would be unfair to confine hi during the pendency of the case" Again we are not convinced" :e ust e phasi8e that extradition cases are su ary in nature" $hey are resorted to erely to deter ine whether the extradition petition and its annexes confor to the Extradition $reaty, not to deter ine guilt or innocence" Neither is it, as a rule, intended to address issues relevant to the constitutional rights available to the accused in a cri inal action" :e are not overruling the possibility that petitioner ay, in bad faith, unduly delay the proceedings" $his is quite another atter that is not at issue here" $hus, any further discussion of this point would be erely anticipatory and acade ic" ;owever, if the delay is due to aneuverings of respondent, with all the ore reason would the grant of bail not be Fustified" @iving pre iu to delay by considering it as a special circu stance for the grant of bail would be tanta ount to giving hi the power to grant bail to hi self" It would also encourage hi to stretch out and unreasonably delay the extradition proceedings even ore" $his we cannot allow" =. Not , F+*2(t R*$7C 3i ene8 further clai s that he is not a flight ris*" $o support this clai , he stresses that he learned of the extradition request in 3une 0>>>H yet, he has not fled the country" $rue, he has not actually fled during the preli inary stages of the request for his extradition" Ket, this fact cannot be ta*en to ean that he will not flee as the process oves forward to its conclusion, as he hears the footsteps of the requesting govern ent

inching closer and closer" $hat he has not yet fled fro the &hilippines cannot be ta*en to ean that he will stand his ground and still be within reach of our govern ent if and /hen it -attersH that is, upon the resolution of the &etition for Extradition" In any event, it is settled that bail ay be applied for and granted by the trial court at anyti e after the applicant has been ta*en into custody and prior to Fudg ent, even after bail has been previously denied" In the present case, the extradition court ay continue hearing evidence on the application for bail, which ay be granted in accordance with the guidelines in this %ecision"

3r*e- Re-/t,t*o% o- !*$$e%t$ $he proposal to re and this case to the extradition court, we believe, is totally unnecessaryH in fact, it is a copAout" $he parties AA in particular, 'espondent 3i ene8 AA have been given ore than sufficient opportunity both by the trial court and this Court to discuss fully and exhaustively private respondent7s clai to bail" As already stated, the '$C set for hearing not only petitioner7s application for an arrest warrant, but also private respondent7s prayer for te porary liberty" $hereafter required by the '$C were e oranda on the arrest, then position papers on the application for bail, both of which were separately filed by the parties" $his Court has eticulously pored over the &etition, the Co ent, the 'eply, the lengthy ,e oranda and the &osition &apers of both parties" Additionally, it has patiently heard the in +ral Argu ents, a procedure not nor ally observed in the great aFority of cases in this $ribunal" ,oreover, after the ,e os had been sub itted, the parties AA particularly the potential extraditee AA have bo barded this Court with additional pleadings AA entitled !,anifestations# by both parties and !CounterA,anifestation# by private respondent AA in which the ain topic was ,r" 3i ene87s plea for bail" A re and would ean that this long, tedious process would be repeated in its entirety" $he trial court would again hear factual and evidentiary atters" Be it noted, however, that, in all his volu inous pleadings and verbal propositions, private respondent has not as*ed for a re and" Evidently, even he reali8es that there is absolutely no need to rehear factual atters" Indeed, the inadequacy lies not in the factual presentation of ,r" 3i ene8" 'ather, it lies in his legal argu ents" 'e anding the case will not solve this utter lac* of persuasion and strength in his legal reasoning" In short, this Court AA as shown by this %ecision and the spirited Concurring, =eparate and %issenting +pinions written by the learned Fustices the selves AA has exhaustively deliberated and carefully passed upon all relevant questions in this case" $hus, a re and will not serve any useful purposeH it will only further delay these already very delayed

proceedings,1D62 which our Extradition ?aw requires to be su--ary in character" :hat we need now is prudent and deliberate speed, not unnecessary and convoluted delay" :hat is needed is a fir decision on the erits, not a circuitous copAout" $hen, there is also the suggestion that this Court is allegedly !disregarding basic freedo s when a case is one of extradition"# :e believe that this charge is not only baseless, but also unfair" =uffice it to say that, in its length and breath, this %ecision has ta*en special cogni8ance of the rights to due process and funda ental fairness of potential extraditees"

su ons hi petition"

or her to answer and to appear at scheduled hearings on the

)" After being ta*en into custody, potential extraditees ay apply for bail" =ince the applicants have a history of absconding, they have the burden of showing that 4a5 there is no flight ris* and no danger to the co unityH and 4b5 there exist special, hu anitarian or co pelling circu stances" $he grounds used by the highest court in the requesting state for the grant of bail therein ay be considered, under the principle of reciprocity as a special circu stance" In extradition cases, bail is not a atter of rightH it is subFect to Fudicial discretion in the context of the peculiar facts of each case" (" &otential extraditees are entitled to the rights to due process and to funda ental fairness" %ue process does not always call for a prior opportunity to be heard" A subsequent opportunity is sufficient due to the flight ris* involved" Indeed, available during the hearings on the petition and the answer is the full chance to be heard and to enFoy funda ental fairness that is co-patible /ith the su--ary nature of extradition" D" $his Court will always re ain a protector of hu an rights, a bastion of liberty, a bulwar* of de ocracy and the conscience of society" But it is also well aware of the li itations of its authority and of the need for respect for the prerogatives of the other coAequal and coA independent organs of govern ent" E" :e reali8e that extradition is essentially an executive, not a Fudicial, responsibility arising out of the presidential power to conduct foreign relations and to i ple ent treaties" $hus, the Executive %epart ent of govern ent has broad discretion in its duty and power of i ple entation" >" +n the other hand, courts erely perfor oversight functions and exercise review authority to prevent or excise grave abuse and tyranny" $hey should not allow contortions, delays and !overAdue process# every little step of the way, lest these su--ary extradition proceedings beco e not only inutile but also sources of international e barrass ent due to our inability to co ply in good faith with a treaty partner7s si ple request to return a fugitive" :orse, our country should not be converted into a dubious haven where fugitives and escapees can unreasonably delay, u ify, oc*, frustrate, chec* ate and defeat the quest for bilateral Fustice and international cooperation" 10. "t bottom, e9tr,&*t*o% pro0ee&*%2$ $(o/+& be 0o%&/0te& @*t( ,++ &e+*ber,te $pee& to &eterm*%e 0omp+*,%0e @*t( t(e E9tr,&*t*o% Tre,t' ,%& 1,@4 ,%&, @(*+e $,-e2/,r&*%2 b,$*0 *%&*>*&/,+ r*2(t$, to ,>o*& t(e +e2,+*$t*0 0o%tort*o%$, &e+,'$ ,%& te0(%*0,+*t*e$ t(,t m,' %e2, te t(,t p/rpo$e. <HEREFORE, the &etition is ,R*4TE+" $he assailed '$C +rder dated ,ay -., -//0 is hereby declared 4)LL and 672+, while the challenged +rder dated 3uly ., -//0 is SET *S2+Einsofar as it granted bail

S/mm,t*o% As we draw to a close, it is now ti e to su ten points9 ari8e and stress these

0" $he ulti ate purpose of extradition proceedings is to deter ine whether the request expressed in the petition, supported by its annexes and the evidence that ay be adduced during the hearing of the petition, co plies with the Extradition $reaty and ?awH and whether the person sought is extraditable" $he proceedings are intended erely to assist the requesting state in bringing the accused AA or the fugitive who has illegally escaped AA bac* to its territory, so that the cri inal process ay proceed therein" -" By entering into an extradition treaty, the &hilippines is dee ed to have reposed its trust in the reliability or soundness of the legal and Fudicial syste 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 cri inal case therein" ." By nature then, extradition proceedings are not equivalent to a cri inal case in which guilt or innocence is deter ined" Consequently, an extradition case is not one in which the constitutional rights of the accused are necessarily available" It is ore a*in, if at all, to a court7s request to police authorities for the arrest of the accused who is at large or has escaped detention or Fu ped bail" ;aving once escaped the Furisdiction of the requesting state, the reasonable pri a facie presu ption is that the person would escape again if given the opportunity" 6" I ediately upon receipt of the petition for extradition and its supporting docu ents, the Fudge shall a*e a pri a facie finding whether the petition is sufficient in for and substance, whether it co plies with the Extradition $reaty and ?aw, and whether the person sought is extraditable" $he agistrate has discretion to require the petitioner to sub it further docu entation, or to personally exa ine the affiants or witnesses" If convinced that a pri a facie case exists, the Fudge i ediately issues a warrant for the arrest of the potential extraditee and

to 'espondent ,ar* 3i ene8" $he bail bond posted by private respondent is C*4CELLE+" $he 'egional $rial Court of ,anila is directed to conduct the extradition proceedings before it, with all deliberate speed pursuant to the spirit and the letter of our Extradition $reaty with the Bnited =tates as well as our Extradition ?aw" No costs" SO OR!ERE!. *ustria1&artine , Corona, and Carpio1&orales, JJ., concur" +avide, Jr., C.J., &endo a, and Calle0o, Sr., Foins in the concurring opinion of 3ustice Carpio" #ellosillo, J., see =eparate +pinion" "uno, J., see =eparate +pinion" 6itug, J., see %issenting +pinion" 8uisu-bing, J., concur in the separate opinion of 3ustice &uno" 9nares1Santiago, J., see %issenting +pinion" Sandoval1,utierre , J., Foin in the =eparate +pinion of 3ustice KnaresA =antiago" Carpio, J., see concurring +pinion"

10-2 10.2

Annex + 4certified true xerox copy5 of the &etition"

$he case was dee ed sub itted for resolution on 3uly ., -//-, upon receipt by this Court of respondent7s CounterA,anifestation" Earlier, on =epte ber ., -//0, this Court received petitioner7s ,e orandu signed by Bndersecretary ,a" ,erceditas N" @utierre8 and =tate Counsel Claro B" <lores" <iled on August -., -//0 was private respondent7s ,e orandu signed by Attys" ,ario ?u8a Bautista, Nic* E anuel C" Cillalu8 and Brigette ," da Costa of &oblador Bautista and 'eyes"
1062 10)2

&etition, pp" >A0/H Rollo, pp" 0/A00"

%uring the +ral Argu ent on August 06, -//0, the Court as*ed the parties to discuss three issues9 05 the propriety of the filing of the &etition in this case before this CourtH -5 whether ,r" ,ar* 3i ene8 is entitled to notice and hearing before the issuance of a warrant for his arrestH and .5 whether the procedure followed by respondent Fudge in issuing the warrant of arrest and granting bail was correct"
10(2 10D2

&etition, p" .H Rollo, p" 6"

102 1-2 1.2 162 1)2 1(2

Rollo, p" D6" 2d., pp" 0--A0-)" &resided by 3udge @uiller o @" &urganan" +rder dated 3uly ., -//0, p" 6H Rollo, p" 0-)" .-- =C'A 0(/, 3anuary 0E, -///H and .6. =C'A .DD, +ctober 0D, -///"

,overn-ent of the )nited States of *-erica, represented by the "hilippine +epart-ent of Justice v. The Regional Trial Court of &anila, #ranch :%, and 4elson &arque , CAA@' =& No" (0/D>, pro ulgated on ,ay D, -//0"
10E2 10>2

&etition, pp" .A6H Rollo, pp" 6A)"

"hil. *ir Lines E-ployees *ssociation v. "hil. *ir Lines, 2nc., 000 =C'A -0), -0>, 3anuary ./, 0>E-H citing Central #an; v. Cloribel , 66 =C'A ./D April 00, 0>D-"
1-/2

=igned on Nove ber 0., 0>>6, and concurred in by the &hilippine =enate on Nove ber ->, 0>>)"
1D2 1E2

"rogressive +evelop-ent Corporation, 2nc. v. Court of *ppeals, ./0 =C'A (.D, 3anuary --, 0>>>"
1-02 1--2 1-.2 1-62

In Civil Case No" >>A>6(E6"

&alon o v. <a-ora, @' No" 0.DD0E, 3uly -D, 0>>>, citing cases" -E> =C'A (-6, April -6, 0>>E, per ,artine8, J" 0>/ =C'A .0, .E, =epte ber -6, 0>>/, per <ernan, CJ"

$he 6/Apage %ecision 4.-- =C'A 0(/, 3anuary 0E, -///5 was penned by 3ustice 3ose A" '" ,elo with the concurrence of 3ustices 3osue N" Bellosillo, 3ose C" Citug, =antiago ," Lapunan, ?eonardo A" Muisu bing, <idel &" &urisi a, Arturo B" Buena, Consuelo KnaresA=antiago and =abino '" de ?eon 3r" %issenting were Chief 3ustice ;ilario %avide 3r"H and 3ustices 'eynato =" &uno, Cicente 6. ,endo8a, Arte io 6. &anganiban, Bernardo &" &ardo and ,inerva &" 'eyes, with 3ustices &uno and &anganiban writing separate %issents"
1>2

&enned by 3ustice &uno and concurred in by Chief 3ustice %avideH and 3ustices ,endo8a, &anganiban, Muisu bing, &urisi a, &ardo, 'eyes and %e ?eon 3r" %issenting were 3ustices Bellosillo, ,elo, Citug, Lapunan, Buena and =antiago, with 3ustices ,elo and =antiago writing separate %issents 4.6. =C'A .DD, +ctober 0D, -///5"
10/2 1002

"hilippine 4ational #an; v. Sayo 3r, ->- =C'A -/-, -.-, 3uly >, 0>>>, per %avide, CJ, citing "eople v. Cuares-a, 0D- =C'A 60), April 0E, 0>>>H +efensor1Santiago v. 6asque , -0D =C'A (.., 3anuary -D, 0>>.H &analo v. ,loria, -.( =C'A 0./, =epte ber 0, 0>>6" =ee also Cru v. Secretary of Environ-ent and 4atural Resources , .6D =C'A 0-E, %ece ber (, -///H #u;lod ng =a/aning E22# v. <a-ora , @' No" 06-E/0A E/-, 3uly 0/, -//0"
1-)2

Annex E of the &etition" Annex , of the &etition"

Agpalo, Statutory Construction , 0>>) ed", p" .D, citing &acondray > Co. v. Eustaquio, (6 &hil" 66(, 3uly 0(, 0>.DH Roldan v. 6illaro-an, (> &hil" 0-, +ctober 0E, 0>.>H Torres v. Li-0ap, )( &hil" 060, =epte ber -0, 0>.0H &anila Lodge 4o. %?$ v. Court of *ppeals, D. =C'A 0(-, =epte ber ./, 0>D(H "eople v. Concepcion , 66 &hil" 0-(, Nove ber ->, 0>--H Tanada

v. Cuenco, 0/. &hil" 0/)0, <ebruary -E, 0>)DH Salaysay v. Castro, >E &hil" .(6, 3anuary .0, 0>)("
1-(2 1-D2

16E2

2d.H citing 2ndependent Life 2ns. Co. v. Rodgers , )) =":" -d D(D, 0() $enn" 66D"
16>2 1)/2 1)02

?ast !:hereas# clause of &% 0/(>"

&etition for Extradition, pp" -A.H Rollo pp" 6>A)/" +rder dated 3uly ., -//0, p" .H Rollo, 0-6"

See @:hereas# clause of &% 0/(> and prea ble of the '&AB= Extradition $reaty"
1-E2 1->2

Bassiouni, 2nternational Extradition, 0>ED ed", p"(E"

In Rodrigue v. Co-elec 4-)> =C'A ->(, 3uly -6, 0>>(5, the Court defined fugitive fro- 0ustice as one who flees after conviction to avoid punish ent or who, after being charged, flees to avoid prosecution"
1./2 1.02 1.-2 1..2 1.62

In the questioned 3uly ., -//0 +rder 4p" 6H Rollo, p" 0-)5, respondent Fudge ad itted that the Annexes of the &etition for Extradition had been received by the court a quo on ,ay -), -//0H yet, in its +rder dated ,ay -., -//0 4Rollo, p" D65, it already set for hearing the issuance of the warrant of arrest"
1)-2 1).2

Bassiouni, supra, p" -0" 2d., p" (D" =hearer, Extradition in 2nternational La/, 0>D0 ed", pp" 0>A-/" Supra, p" .>-, +ctober 0D, -///, per &uno, J"

See N>, &% 0/(>" citing 0 ?"

Bassiouni, 2nternational Extradition, supra, p" EDH +ppenhei , 2nternational La/, 4Eth ed", 0>))5, pp" >)-A)."
1)62 1))2 1)(2 1)D2 1)E2

-E/ =C'A .(), +ctober >, 0>>D" 2d., p" .E0, per &anganiban, J" -6D =C'A ()-, (E/, per &uno, J" Ib2d.H citing *llado v. +io;no, -.. =C'A 0>-, ,ay ), 0>>6"

Coquia, !+n I ple entation of the B=A'& Extradition $reaty,# The La/yers Revie/, August .0, -///, p" 6"
1.)2 1.(2 1.D2 1.E2 1.>2 16/2

See Bassiouni, supra, p" )6(H citing --0 B"=" )/E, )0- 40>0/5" Supra. Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, supra. =hearer, Extradition in 2nternational La/, 0>D0 ed", p" 0)D" 2d., p" )6)"

"ri-a facie finding, not probable cause, is the ore precise ter inology because an extradition case is not a cri inal proceeding in which the latter phrase is co only used"
1)>2

In line with the &hilippine policy of cooperation and a ity with all nations set forth in Article II, =ection -, Constitution"
1602

$he Bnited =tates %istrict Court, %istrict of Nevada, ?as Cegas, Nevada9 !In the ,atter of the Extradition of Charlie Atong Ang, a fugitive fro the country of the &hilippines,# 1the court2 has denied ,r" Ang7s otion for bail, per petitioner7s ,anifestation dated 3une ), -//-"
16-2 16.2 1662

!=EC" 6" #ail, a -atter of right3 exception. A All persons in custody shall be ad itted to bail as a atter of right, with sufficient sureties, or released on recogni8ance as prescribed by law or this 'ule 4a5 before or after conviction by the ,etropolitan $rial Court, ,unicipal $rial Court, ,unicipal $rial Court in Cities, or ,unicipal Circuit $rial Court, and 4b5 before conviction by the 'egional $rial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life i prison ent"#
1(/2

+e la Ca-ara v. Enage, 60 =C'A 0, (, =epte ber 0D, 0>D0, per <ernando, J. 4later CJ5"
1(02 1(-2 1(.2

Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, supra. 5right v. !en;el, 0>/ B"=" 6/, (-, ,arch -., 0>/." for Certiorari, p" 0EH Rollo p" 0>H

N0E, Art" CII, Constitution" "aretti v. )nited States of *-erica, 0-- <" .d" D)E, ,ay (, 0>>D"

See footnote no" 60, &etition ,anifestation dated 3une ), -//-"

16)2

,arcia v. 4LRC, @' No" 00/6>6, Nove ber 0E, 0>>(H "aat v. Court of *ppeals, 3anuary 0/, 0>>D"
1(62

&ersily, !International Extradition and the 'ight to Bail,# .6 =tan" 3" Int7l ?" 6/D 4=u er, 0>>E5"
16(2 16D2

=ee Central #an; of the "hilippines v. Court of *ppeals , --/ =C'A ).(, ,arch -/, 0>>."
1()2

2bid.

2bid. =ee also #usuego v. Court of *ppeals, ./6 =C'A 6D., ,arch 00, 0>>>"
1((2

.> C3= ED), citing "eople v. #lair, .. NK= -d 0E., 0>/, 0>0H *-erada "etroleu- Corporation v. !ester, 0/> &" -d E-/, E-0, 0EE +*l" .>6"

Coquia, !+n the I ple entation of the B=A'& Extradition $reaty,# supraH citing =elso v. )S +epart-ent of State, 0. < =upp" ->0 1%%C 0>>E2"

1(D2

It states9 !If the person sought consents in writing to surrender to the 'equesting =tate, the 'equested =tate ay surrender the person as expeditiously as possible without further proceedings"#
1(E2 1(>2 1D/2 1D02

N0, Art" CIII, Constitution" N), Art" CIII, Constitution" I"A" Cru8, Constitutional La/, 0>>E ed", p" >E"

&rivate respondent argues that the following cases AA 2n re &ichell, 0D0 <" 'ep" -E>, 3une ./, 0>/>H )nited States v. =irby, #rennan and *rtt , 0/( <" .d" E)), <ebruary -D, 0>>D and 0)E <" .d" 6(-, +ctober >, 0>>E" #eaulieu v. !artigan, 6(/ <" =upp" >0), ,arch 06, 0>DDH and ))6 <" -d 0, April (, 0>DD AA should be treated as exa ples of special circu stances" In our view, however, they are not applicable to this case due to factual differences" ;ence we refrain fro ruling on this argu ent of 3i ene8"
1D-2 1D.2 1D62

.-6 =C'A (E>, <ebruary ., -///, per KnaresA=antiago, J" 2d., pp" D//AD/-"

$he B= request for extradition was dated 3une 0(, 0>>>H and yet, to date, ore than three years later, the &etition for Extradition is still languishing in the trial court"