RIGHT TO BAIL

BAIL (Section 1, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure) - is the surety for the release
of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance
before any court as required under the conditions hereinafter specied. Bail may be given in the
form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance.

I. EXTRADITION
A. GOVT OF THE USA VS PURGANAN
FACTS:
Mark Jimenez has been charged of certain offenses in the United States, which
include the following: to defraud the US, tax evasion, wire fraud, false statements
and illegal campaign distributions.

Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the US Government, in
representation of SOJ requested for the extradition of the Accused herein.

Upon learning of the request for his extradition, he sought and was granted by RTC
of Manila TRO. The TRO prohibited the DOJ for ling with the RTC of Manila a
petition for his extradition. Initially the petition was dismissed.

Acting for motion for reconsideration le by the SOJ, and after three justices
reversed their voted, it reconsidered and reversed the earlier decision.

Finding no more obstacle the US Government thru DOJ led with the RTC the
appropriate extradition. Before the RTC accused led an Urgent Manifestation/ Ex
Parte Motion which prayed that petitioners application for an arrest warrant be set
on hearing. After the hearing, the court required parties to submit their respective
memoranda. In his memorandum, Jimenez sought an alternative prayer that in case
a warrant should issue, he be allowed to post a bail in the amount of P100, 000.

ISSUE:
Whether or not an extraditee is entitled to post a bail.

HELD:
No. Supposedly, the only exceptions are the ones charged with offense punishable
by reclusion perpetua, when evidence of guilt is strong. This, however does not
apply to extradition proceedings, because extradition courts does not render
judgments of conviction or acquittal. Moreover, the Constitutional right to bail ows
from the presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who should be
subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal,
unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It follows that the constitutional
provision on bail will not apply to a case like extradition, where the presumption of
innocence is not an issue.

B. GOVT OF HONGKONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE
REGION VS HON. OLALIA
FACTS:
Respondent Muoz was charged of 3 counts of offenses of accepting an
advantage as agent, and 7 counts of conspiracy to defraud, punishable by the
common law of Hongkong. The Hongkong Department of Justice requested
DOJ for the provisional arrest of respondent Muoz; the DOJ forward the
request to the NBI then to RTC. On the same day, NBI agents arrested him.

Respondent led with the CA a petition for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus with application for preliminary mandatory injunction and writ of
habeas corpus questioning the validity of the order of arrest.

The CA declared the arrest void. Hence this petition by the Hongkong
Department of Justice thru DOJ.

DOJ led a petition for certiorari in this Court and sustained the validity of the
arrest.

Hongkong Administrative Region then led in the RTC petition for extradition
and arrest of respondent. Meanwhile, respondent led a petition for bail, which
was opposed by the petitioner, initially the RTC denied the petition holding that
there is no Philippine Law granting bail in extradition cases and that private
responded is a ight risk.

Motion for reconsideration was led by the respondent, which was granted.
Hence this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not right to bail can be avail in extradition cases.

HELD:
In Purganan case, the right to bail was not included in the extradition cases,
since it is available only in criminal proceedings.

However the Supreme Court, recognized the following trends in International
Law.
1. The growing importance of the individual person in publican
international law who, in the 20th century attained global
recognition.
2. The higher value now being given in human rights in international
sphere
3. The corresponding duty of countries to observe these human
rights in fullling their treaty obligations
4. The of duty of this court to balance the rights of the individual
under our fundamental law, on one hand, and the law on
extradition on the other.

The modern trend in the public international law is the primacy placed on the sanctity
of human rights.

Enshrined the Constitution The state values the dignity of every human person and
guarantees full respect for human rights. The Philippines therefore, has the
responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of every person to liberty and due
process, ensuring that those detained or arrested can participate in the proceeding
before the a court, to enable it to decide without delay on the legality of the detention
and order their release if justied.

Examination of this Court in the doctrines provided for in the US Vs Purganan provide the
following.
1. The exercise of the States police power to deprive a person of his liberty is not limited
to criminal proceedings.
2. To limit the right to bail in the criminal proceeding would be to close our eyes to
jurisprudential history. Philippines has not limited the exercise of the right to bail to
criminal proceedings only. This Court has admitted to bail persons who are not
involved in criminal proceedings. In fact, bail has been involved in this jurisdiction to
persons in detention during the tendency of administrative proceedings, taking into
cognizance the obligation of the Philippines under international conventions to uphold
human rights.

EXTRADITION, is dened as the removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object
of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting state or
government to hold him in connection with criminal investigation directed against him or
execution of a penalty imposed on him under the penal and criminal law of the requesting
state or government. Thus characterized as the right of the a foreign power, created by treaty
to demand the surrender of one accused or convicted of a crimes within its territorial
jurisdiction, and the correlative obligation of the other state to surrender him to the demanding
state.

The extradited may be subject to detention as may be necessary step in the process of
extradition, but the length of time in the detention should be reasonable.

In the case at bar, the record show that the respondent, Muoz has been detained for 2 years
without being convicted in Hongkong.

The Philippines has the obligation of ensuring the individual his right to liberty and due
process and should not therefor deprive the extraditee of his right to bail PROVIDED that
certain standards for the grant is satisfactorily met. In other words there should be CLEAR
AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

However in the case at bar, the respondent was not able to show and clear and convincing
evidence that he be entitled to bail. Thus the case is remanded in the court for the
determination and otherwise, should order the cancellation of his bond and his immediate
detention.

II. DEPORTATION
GO VS RAMOS
FACTS:
This case arose when Ramos, respondent herein led for the deportation of Go,
the petitioner herein alleging that he is an illegal and undesirable alien.
Respondent herein contends that thru falsication, Jimmy Go was able to
conceal his true citizenship and was able to secure a passport from DFA.

Jimmy in return, averred that Luis led a deportation case against him as a
harassment case designed to oust him of his rightful share in their business
dealings. Jimmy said that his father is a Filipino when the latter elected Philippine
Citizenship in accordance with Article IV Section 1 Paragraph 4 of the 1935
Constitution and Commonwealth Act No 625, as evidence by his having taken
the Oath of Allegiance on 1950 and having executed an Afdavit of Election of
the Philippine Citizenship on July 1950.

Regarding with the erroneous entry in his birth certicate that he is FChinese, he
maintained that such was not of his own doing, but may be attributed to the
employees of the Local Civil Registrar who might have relied on his Chinese
sounding surname.

The NBI which was tasked to investigate the election of Jimmys father on
citizenship dismissed the petition for deportation of Jimmy.

While the Board of Commissioners reversed said dismissal holding that the
election of Philippine Citizenship was made out of time, thus ordering the
preparation for the deportation of Jimmy.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Jimmy, after the deportation order has been issued can still
invoke his right to bail.

HELD:
No. Under the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, the power to grant bail can
only be exercised while the alien is still under investigation, and not when the
order of deportation had already been issued by the Board.