(case no.

127)

GOVERNMENT OF USA v. PURGANAN

GR Number 148571
September 24, 2002
Art. III
FACTS:
Pursuant to the RP-US Extradition Treaty, the US Government sent to the Philippine
Government documents requesting the extradition of Mark B. Jimenez (a.k.a. Mario Batacan
Crespo). Upon receipt of the documents, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs transmitted them to the
Secretary of Justice for appropriate action, pursuant to Section 5 of PD 1069 (Extradition Law).
Upon learning of the request, Jimenez sought and was granted a TRO by Manila RTC
Branch 25. It prohibited the DOJ from filing a petition for his extradition. The validity of the
TRO was assailed in a petition before the SC, it was initially dismissed but upon reconsideration
the SC reversed its earlier decision. It held that the private respondent was bereft of the right to
notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. The Resolution became
final and executory.
The US Government, represented by the DOJ, filed with the RTC on May 18, 2001, the
Petition for Extradition. It alleged that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the
US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 15, 1999. The warrant has been
issued in connection with several charges including conspiracy to defraud the US, tax evasion,
wire fraud, false statements, and illegal campaign contributions. In order to prevent flight of
Jimenez, petition prayed for the issuance of an order for his immediate arrest pursuant to Section
6 of PD 1069.
Before the RTC could act on the petition, Jimenez filed an Urgent Manifestation which
prayed that petitioners application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. RTC granted the
motion and set the case for hearing on June 5, 2001. In the hearing, petitioner manifested its
reservations on the procedure adopted by the trial court in allowing accused in an extradition
case to be heard prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
Respondent prayed that he be allowed to post bail of 10,000 pesos. The Court issued a
Resolution directing the issuance of a warrant for the arrest and fixing bail for the respondents
temporary liberty at 1,000,000 pesos in cash.
After Jimenez surrendered his passport and posted the cash bond, he was granted
provisional liberty through the challenged order dated July 4, 2001. Hence, the petition.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant of his arrest
can be issued.
2. Whether or not Jimenez is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition
proceedings are pending.
HELD:
1. No. Section 6 of PD 1069 uses the word immediate to qualify the arrest of the accused.
The qualification would be rendered nugatory by setting for hearing the issuance of
the arrest warrant. The law could not have intended the word as a mere superfluity but
a means of imparting a sense of urgency and swiftness in the determination of whether a
warrant of arrest should be issued. The respondent judge could have already gotten an

Prepared by: Cecille Diane DJ. Mangaser

(case no. 127)

impression from the records submitted before him to make an initial determination of
whether the accused was someone who should be immediately arrested in order to best
serve the ends of justice.
A prima facie existence of probable cause is already evident and the need to issue
the arrest warrant may be determined from the Petition itself and the supporting
documents. Sending to persons sought to be extradited a notice of the request for the
arrest and setting it for hearing on a future date would give them ample opportunity
to prepare and execute an escape. Neither the treaty, nor the law could have intended
that consequence, the purpose of both would have been defeated by the escape of the
accused from the requested State.
If the presence of a prima facie case is determined, the magistrate must
immediately issue a warrant of arrest of the extradite. The judge must not inform the
potential extradite of the pendency of the petition, lest he be given the opportunity
to escape and frustrate the proceedings.
2. No. The Constitutional provision on bail applies only when a person has been
arrested and detained for the violation of Philippine Criminal Laws. It does not
apply to extradition proceedings, because extradition courts do not render judgments of
conviction or acquittal.

Prepared by: Cecille Diane DJ. Mangaser