Due Process

Government of the U.S. vs. Purganan, G.R. No. 148571 (Sept. 24, 2002)
FACTS:
This petition is a sequel to Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion. Pursuant to the
existing RP US Extradition Treaty, the U.S. government, through diplomatic
channels, requested from the RP the extradition of Mark Jimenez, also known as
Mario Batacan Crespo.
Pursuant to Sec. 5 of the P.D. No. 1069 (Extradition Law), DFA transmitted the
extradition request to DOJ. Jimenez was granted a TRO that prohibited DOJ from
filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition. However, the validity of the TRO
was assailed by the Secretary of Justice but the petition was dismissed. DOJ was
ordered to furnish Jimenez copies of the extradition request and its supporting
documents, and to grant him a reasonable period within which to file a comment
with supporting evidence.
Secretary of Justice filed for a Motion for Reconsideration and the Court
reversed its earlier decision. It held that Mark Jimenez was bereft of the right to
notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. The
resolution became final and executory.
Finding no more legal obstacle, the government of U.S. represented by DOJ,
filed with the RTC the appropriate petition for extradition alleging that Jimenez was
the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida in connection with the charges against him.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the respondent (Mark Jimenez) is entitled to Notice and
Hearing before the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest?
2. Whether or not the respondent is entitled to bail?
3. Whether or not there has been a violation of due process on the part of the
respondent?
RULING:
1. Whether or not the respondent (Mark Jimenez) is entitled to Notice and
Hearing before the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest?
No. Sec. 6 of P.D. 1069 (Extradition Law) uses the word immediate to
qualify the arrest of the accused. Arrest subsequent to a hearing can no
longer be considered immediate.
In Ho. Vs. People, never was a judge required to go to the extent of
conducting a hearing just for the purpose of personally determining the

probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. All that is required was
that the Judge must have sufficient supporting documents upon which to
make his independent judgment, or at the very least, upon which to verify the
findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause.
That the case under consideration is an extradition and not a criminal action,
where in Notice and Hearing, the innocence and guilt of the accused is being
determined as the issue of the case. While in extradition proceeding, the
issue is whether the extraditee is to be disposed to the requesting country
based on the probable cause of the case.
2. Whether or not the respondent is entitled to bail?
No. The petitioner claims that there is no provision in the Philippine
Constitution granting the right to bail to a person who is the subject of an
extradition request and arrest warrant.
Sec. 13 of Art. 3 of the Philippine Constitution as well as Sec. 4 of Rule 114 of
Rules of Court does not apply to extradition proceedings, because extradition
courts does not render judgments of conviction or acquittal.
Presumption of innocence is not an issue in extradition proceedings, therefore
constitutional bail will not apply. That the offense on which Jimenez is sought
to be extradited are bailable in the U.S. courts that will conduct the trial to
prove his innocence or guilt.
3. Whether or not there has been a violation of due process on the part of the
respondent?
No. The respondent will be given a full opportunity to be heard subsequently,
when the extradition courts hears the petition for Extradition. Hence, there is
no violation of his right to due process.