GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. HON.

GUILLERMO PURGANAN
G.R. No. 148571 / SEPT 24, 2002 / PANGANIBAN, J. / EXTRADITION PROCESS / KJMSTA.ANA
NATURE
Petition for Certiorari
PETITIONERS
Government of the United States of America, represented by the Philippine Department of Justice
RESPONDENTS
Hon. Guillermo Purganan, Presiding Judge Regional Trial Court
of Manila and Marc Jimenez aka Marcio Batacan Crespo
SUMMARY. Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the US Government requested the extradition of Mark Jimenez. A hearing was
held to determine whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. Afterwards, such warrant was issued but the trial court allowed Jimenez to post
bail for his provisional liberty. The Supreme Court held that such is not allowed as the constitutional provision on bail applies only when a person
has been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws, not to extradition proceedings.
DOCTRINE. The provision in the Constitution stating that the right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is suspended does not detract from the rule that the constitutional right to bail is available only in criminal proceedings. It must be noted
that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus finds application only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses
inherent in or directly connected with invasion. Hence, the second sentence in the constitutional provision on bail merely emphasizes the right
to bail in criminal proceedings for the aforementioned offenses. It cannot be taken to mean that the right is available even in extradition
proceedings that are not criminal in nature.
FACTS.
This petition is a sequel to GR No. 139465 entitled Secretary of Justice v. Ralph C. Lantion.
Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the United States Government sent to the Philippine Government Note Verbale No. 0522 dated
June 16, 1999, supplemented by Note Nos. 0597, 0720 and 0809 requesting the extradition of Mark B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan
Crespo.
Upon learning of the request for his extradition, Jimenez sought and was granted a TRO by the RTC of Manila, Branch 25. The TRO prohibited the
DOJ from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition.
Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Respondent Jimenez filed before it an Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion, which prayed that petitioners
application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing.
RTC: granted the Motion of Jimenez and set the case for hearing on June 5, 2001. 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 a warrant should issue, he be allowed to post
bail in the amount of P100, 000. 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 the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his temporary
liberty at P1,000,000 in cash. After he had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond, Jimenez was granted provisional liberty
via the challenged Order dated July 4, 2001.
ISSUES & RATIO.
1. WON extraditee is entitled to notice and hearing before issuance of warrant of arrest NO.
There is no requirement to notify and hear the accused before the issuance of warrants of arrest. The case under consideration is an
extradition and not a criminal action; therefore, it is not sufficient to justify the adoption of a set of procedures more protective of the accused.
2. WON Jimenez is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending NO.
The constitutional provision on bail applies only when a person has been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. It
does not apply to extradition proceedings, because extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal.
DECISION.
Petition granted. Assailed RTC Order is hereby declared NULL and VOID. The bail bond posted by private respondent is CANCELLED. RTC is
directed to conduct the extradition proceedings before it, with all deliberate speed pursuant to the spirit and letter of our Extradition Treaty with the
US.
NOTES.
Put here important stuff that you think the prof might ask.
Five Postulates of Extradition:
1. Extradition is a major instrument for the suppression of crime
2. The requesting state will accord due process to the accused
3. The proceedings are sui generis
4. Compliance shall be in good faith
5. There is an underlying flight of risk