United States vs. Judge Puruganan, G.R. No.
148571, Sept. 24, 2002
Nature: Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court
Keywords: Extradition Process, Bail on
Extradition, Right of Due Process and Fundamental Fairness in Extradition; PD
1069, US-Phil Extradition Treaty
Summary: The
Secretary was ordered to furnish Mr. Jimenez copies of the extradition request
and its supporting papers and to grant the latter a reasonable period within
which to file a comment and supporting evidence. But, on motion for reconsideration by the Sec. of Justice,
it reversed its decision but held that the Mr. Jimenez was bereft of the right
to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition
process. On May 18, 2001, the
Government of the USA, represented by the Philippine Department of Justice,
filed with the RTC, the Petition for Extradition praying for the issuance of an
order for his “immediate arrest” pursuant to Sec. 6 of PD 1069 in order to
prevent the flight of Jimenez.
Before the RTC could act on the petition, Mr. Jimenez filed before it an
“Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion” praying for his
application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. After the hearing, as required by the court, Mr. Jimenez
submitted his Memorandum. Therein
seeking an alternative prayer that in case a warrant should issue, he be
allowed to post bail in the amount of P100,000. The court ordered the issuance of a warrant for his arrest
and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at P1M in cash. After he had surrendered his passport
and posted the required cash bond, Jimenez was granted provisional
liberty.
Government of the USA filed
a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to set aside the
order for the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his
temporary liberty at P1M in cash which the court deems best to take cognizance
as there is still no local
jurisprudence to guide lower court.
PANGANIBAN, J.
Facts:
This Petition is a
sequel to Secretary of Justice v. Ralph C. Lantion.
Pursuant to the
existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the United States Government, through
diplomatic channels, sent to the Philippine Government Note Verbale No. 0522,
accompanied by duly authenticated documents requesting the extradition of Mark
B. Jimenez. Upon receipt of the Notes and documents, the secretary of foreign
affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for
appropriate action, pursuant to Section 5 of the Extradition Law.
Upon learning of the
request for his extradition, Jimenez sought and was granted a TRO by the RTC of
Manila. The TRO prohibited the DOJ from filing with the RTC a petition for his
extradition. The validity of the TRO was, however, assailed by the SOJ in a
Petition before this Court. Initially, the Court -- by a vote of 9-6 --
dismissed the Petition. The SOJ 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 comment and supporting
evidence.
Acting on the Motion
for Reconsideration filed by the SOJ, the Court issued its October 17, 2000
Resolution. By an identical vote of 9-6 -- after three justices changed their
votes -- it reconsidered and reversed its earlier Decision. It held that
private respondent was bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the
evaluation stage of the extradition process. This Resolution has become final
and executory.
Finding no more legal
obstacle, the Government of the United States of America, represented by the
Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC on May 18, 2001, the appropriate Petition
for Extradition. The Petition alleged, inter alia, that Jimenez was the subject
of an arrest warrant issued by the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on April 15, 1999. The warrant had been issued in
connection with the following charges: (1) conspiracy to defraud the United
States and to commit certain offenses in violation of Title 18 US Code Section
371; (2) tax evasion; (3) wire fraud; (4) false statements; and (5) illegal
campaign contributions; (d) and Title 18 US Code Section 2. In order to prevent
the flight of Jimenez, the Petition prayed for the issuance of an order for his
immediate arrest pursuant to Section 6 of PD No. 1069.
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.
In its assailed May
23, 2001 Order, the RTC granted the Motion of Jimenez and set the case for
hearing on June 5, 2001. In that hearing, petitioner manifested 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 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 one million
pesos 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.
Hence, this Petition
Issue:
i. Whether or NOT Hon. Purganan acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in adopting a procedure of first hearing a potential
extraditee before issuing an arrest warrant under Section 6 of PD No. 1069
ii. Whether or NOT Hon.
Purganan acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting the prayer
for bail
iii. Whether or NOT there is a
violation of due process
Held: Petition is
GRANTED. Bail bond posted is CANCELLED.
Regional Trial Court of
Manila is directed to conduct the
extradition proceedings before it.
Ratio:
i. YES.
By using the phrase “if
it appears,” the law further conveys that accuracy is not as
important as speed at
such early stage. From the
knowledge and the material then available to it, the court is expected merely
to get a good first impression or a prima facie finding sufficient to make a
speedy initial determination as regards the arrest and detention of the
accused. The prima facie existence
of probable cause for hearing the petition and, a priori, for issuing an arrest
warrant was already evident from the Petition itself and its supporting
documents. Hence, after having
already determined therefrom that a prima facie finding did exist, respondent
judge gravely abused his discretion when he set the matter for hearing upon
motion of Jimenez. The silence of
the Law and the Treaty leans to the more reasonable interpretation that there
is no intention to punctuate with a hearing every little step in the entire
proceedings. It also bears
emphasizing at this point that extradition proceedings are summary in
nature. Sending to persons sought to
be extradited a notice of the request for their arrest and setting it for
hearing at some future date would give them ample opportunity to prepare and
execute an escape which neither the Treaty nor the Law could have intended.
Even Section 2 of Article
III of our Constitution, which is invoked by Jimenez, does not require a notice
or a hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest. To determine probable cause for
the issuance of arrest warrants, the Constitution itself requires only the
examination under oath or affirmation of complainants and the witnesses they
may produce.
The Proper Procedure
to “Best Serve The Ends Of Justice” In Extradition Cases
Upon receipt of a petition
for extradition and its supporting documents, the judge must study them and
make, as soon as possible, a prima facie finding whether
a) they are sufficient in form
and substance
b) they show compliance with
the Extradition Treaty and Law
c) the person sought is
extraditable
At his discretion,
the judge may require the submission of further documentation or may personally
examine the affiants and witnesses of the petitioner. If, in spite of this study and examination, no prima facie
finding is possible, the petition may be dismissed at the discretion of the
judge. On the other hand, if the
presence of a prima facie case is determined, then the magistrate must
immediately issue a warrant for the arrest of the extraditee, who is at the
same time summoned to answer the petition and to appear at scheduled summary
hearings. Prior to the issuance of
the warrant, the judge must not inform or notify the potential extraditee of
the pendency of the petition, lest the latter be given the opportunity to
escape and frustrate the proceedings.
ii. Yes.
The constitutional
provision on bail on Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution, as well
as Section 4 of Rule
114 of the Rules of Court, 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. Moreover, the constitutional
right to bail “flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every
accused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he
would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable
doubt. In extradition, the
presumption of innocence is not at issue.
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” finds application “only to persons judicially charged for rebellion
or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.”
That the offenses for which
Jimenez is sought to be extradited are bailable in the United States is not an
argument to grant him one in the present case. Extradition proceedings are separate and distinct from
the trial for the offenses for which he is charged. He should apply for bail before the
courts trying the criminal cases against him, not before the extradition court.
Exceptions to the “No Bail” Rule
Bail is not a matter of
right in extradition cases. It is
subject to judicial discretion in the context of the peculiar facts of each
case. Bail may be applied
for and granted as an exception, only upon a clear and convincing showing
1) that, once granted bail,
the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and
2) that there exist special,
humanitarian and compelling circumstances including, as a matter of
reciprocity, those cited by the highest court in the requesting state when it
grants provisional liberty in extradition cases therein
Since this exception has no
express or specific statutory basis, and since it is derived essentially from
general principles of justice and fairness, the applicant bears the burden
of proving the above two-tiered requirement with clarity, precision and
emphatic forcefulness.
It must be noted that even
before private respondent ran for and won a congressional seat in Manila, it
was already of public knowledge that the United States was requesting his
extradition. Therefore, his
constituents were or should have been prepared for the consequences of the
extradition case. Thus, the court
ruled against his claim that his election to public office is by itself a
compelling reason to grant him bail.
Giving premium to delay by
considering it as a special circumstance for the grant of bail would be
tantamount to giving him the power to grant bail to himself. It would also encourage him to stretch
out and unreasonably delay the extradition proceedings even more. Extradition proceedings should be
conducted with all deliberate speed to determine compliance with the
Extradition Treaty and Law; and, while safeguarding basic individual rights, to
avoid the legalistic contortions,
delays and technicalities that may negate that purpose.
That he has not yet fled
from the Philippines cannot be taken to mean that he will stand his ground and
still be within reach of our government if and when it matters; that is, upon
the resolution of the Petition for Extradition.
iii. NO.
Potential extraditees are
entitled to the rights to due process and to fundamental fairness. The doctrine of right to due process
and fundamental fairness does not always call for a prior opportunity to be
heard. A subsequent
opportunity to be heard is enough.
He will be given full opportunity to be heard subsequently, when the
extradition court hears the Petition for Extradition. Indeed, available during the hearings on the petition and
the answer is the full chance to be heard and to enjoy fundamental fairness
that is compatible with the summary nature of extradition.
It is also worth noting
that before the US government requested the extradition of respondent,
proceedings had already been conducted in that country. He already had that opportunity in the
requesting state; yet, instead of taking it, he ran away.
Ruling: WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The
assailed RTC Order dated May 23, 2001 is hereby declared NULL and VOID, while
the challenged Order dated July 3, 2001 is SET ASIDE insofar as it granted bail
to Respondent Mark Jimenez. The bail bond posted by private respondent is
CANCELLED. The Regional Trial Court of Manila is directed to conduct the
extradition proceedings before it, with all deliberate speed pursuant to the
spirit and the letter of our Extradition Treaty with the United States as well
as our Extradition Law. No costs.
Doctrine: – Five
Postulates of Extradition
1) Extradition Is a Major
Instrument for the Suppression of Crime
In this era of
globalization, easier and faster international travel, and an expanding ring of
international crimes
and criminals, we cannot afford to be an isolationist state. We need to cooperate with other states
in order to improve our chances of suppressing crime in our own country.
2) The Requesting State Will
Accord Due Process to the Accused
By entering into an
extradition treaty, the Philippines is deemed to have reposed its trust
in the reliability or
soundness of the legal and judicial system 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 criminal case therein.
3) The Proceedings Are Sui
Generis
An extradition
proceeding is sui generis:
a) It is not a criminal
proceeding which will call into operation all the rights of an accused as
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
It does not involve the determination of the guilt or innocence of an
accused. His guilt or innocence
will be adjudged in the court of the state where he will be extradited.
b) An extradition proceeding
is summary in nature while criminal proceedings involve a full-blown trial.
c) In terms of the quantum of
evidence to be satisfied, a criminal case requires proof “beyond reasonable
doubt” for conviction while a fugitive may be ordered extradited “upon showing
of the existence of a prima facie case”
d) Unlike in a criminal case
where judgment becomes executory upon being rendered final, in an extradition
proceeding, our courts may adjudge an individual extraditable but the President
has the final discretion to extradite him.
Extradition is merely
a measure of international judicial assistance through which a person charged
with or convicted of a crime is restored to a jurisdiction with the best claim
to try that person. The ultimate
purpose of extradition proceedings in court is only to determine whether the
extradition request complies with the Extradition Treaty, and whether the
person sought is extraditable.
4) Compliance Shall Be in Good
Faith.
We are bound by pacta
sunt servanda to comply in good faith with our obligations
under the
Treaty. Accordingly, the
Philippines must be ready and in a position to deliver the
accused, should it be
found proper
5) There Is an Underlying Risk
of Flight
Indeed, extradition
hearings would not even begin, if only the accused were
willing to submit to
trial in the requesting country. Prior acts of herein respondent:
a) leaving the requesting
state right before the conclusion of his indictment proceedings there; and
b) remaining in the requested
state despite learning that the requesting state is seeking his return and that
the crimes he is charged with are bailable
Extradition is
Essentially Executive
Extradition is
essentially an executive, not a judicial, responsibility arising out of the
presidential power to conduct foreign relations and to implement treaties. Thus, the Executive Department of
government has broad discretion in its duty and power of implementation.
