Government of USA vs Purganan

G.R. No. 148571. September 24, 2002

a!ts" Ths Petton s reay a seque to GR No. 139465 entted Secretary
of Justice v. Ralph C. Lantion where the court hed that |menez was
bereft of the rght to notce and hearng durng the evauaton stage of the
extradton process.
Fndng no more ega obstace, the Government of the Unted States of
Amerca, represented by the Phppne DO|, ed wth the RTC on 18 May
2001, the approprate Petton for Extradton whch was docketed as
Extradton Case 01192061. The Petton aeged, nter aa, that |menez
was the sub|ect of an arrest warrant ssued by the Unted States Dstrct
Court for the Southern Dstrct of Forda on 15 Apr 1999.
Before the RTC coud act on the Petton, |menez ed before t an "Urgent
Manfestaton/Ex-Parte Moton," whch prayed that |menezs appcaton for
an arrest warrant be set for hearng. In ts 23 May 2001 Order, the RTC
granted the Moton of |menez and set the case for hearng on 5 |une 2001.
In that hearng, |menez manfested ts reservatons on the procedure
adopted by the tra court aowng the accused n an extradton case to be
heard pror to the ssuance of a warrant of arrest.
After the hearng, the court a quo requred the partes to submt ther
respectve memoranda. In hs Memorandum, |menez sought an aternatve
prayer: that n case a warrant shoud ssue, he be aowed to post ba n
the amount of P100,000.
The aternatve prayer of |menez was aso set for hearng on 15 |une 2001.
Thereafter, the court beow ssued ts 3 |uy 2001 Order, drectng the
ssuance of warrant for hs arrest and xng ba for hs temporary berty at
P1 mon n cash. After he had surrendered hs passport and posted the
requred cash bond, |menez was granted provsona berty va the
chaenged Order dated 4 |uy 2001. Hence, ths petton.
#ssues" 1.Whether |menez s entted to notce and hearng before a
warrant for hs arrest can be ssued
2. Whether he s entted to ba and to provsona berty whe the
extradton proceedngs are pendng
$e%&:
1. No.
To determne probabe cause for the ssuance of arrest warrants, the
Consttuton tsef requres ony the examnaton -- under oath or
amrmaton -- of complainants and the witnesses they may produce. There
s no requrement to notfy and hear the accused before the ssuance of
warrants of arrest.
At most, n cases of cear nsumcency of evdence on record, |udges
merey further examne complainants and their wtnesses. In the present
case, vadatng the act of respondent |udge and nsttutng the practce of
hearng the accused and hs wtnesses at ths eary stage woud be
dscordant wth the ratonae for the entre system. If the accused were
aowed to be heard and necessary to present evdence durng the prima
facie determnaton for the ssuance of a warrant of arrest, what woud stop
hm from presentng hs entre pethora of defenses at ths stage -- f he so
desres -- n hs ehort to negate a prima facie fnding? Such a procedure
coud convert the determnaton of a prma face case nto a fu-bown tra
of the entre proceedngs and possby make tra of the man case
superuous. Ths scenaro s aso anathema to the summary nature of
extradtons.
'''Upon recept of a petton for extradton and ts supportng documents,
the |udge must study them and make, as soon as possbe, a prima facie
fnding whether (a) they are sumcent n form and substance, (b) they
show compance wth the Extradton Treaty and Law, and (c) the person
sought s extradtabe. At hs dscreton, the |udge may requre the
submsson of further documentaton or may personay examne the
amants and wtnesses of the pettoner. If, n spte of ths study and
examnaton, no prima facie fnding s possbe, the petton may be
dsmssed at the dscreton of the |udge.
On the other hand, f the presence of a prma face case s determned,
then the magstrate must mmedatey ssue a warrant for the arrest of the
extradtee, who s at the same tme summoned to answer the petton and
to appear at schedued summary hearngs. Pror to the ssuance of the
warrant, the |udge must not nform or notfy the potenta extradtee of the
pendency of the petton, est the atter be gven the opportunty to escape
and frustrate the proceedngs. In our opnon, the foregong procedure w
"best serve the ends of |ustce" n extradton cases.'''
2. No.
Extradton cases are dherent from ordnary crmna proceedngs. The
consttutona rght to ba "ows from the presumpton of nnocence n
favor of every accused who shoud not be sub|ected to the oss of freedom
as thereafter he woud be entted to acqutta, uness hs gut be proved
beyond reasonabe doubt."

It foows that the consttutona provson on
ba w not appy to a case ke extradton, where the presumpton of
nnocence s not at ssue.
Respondent |menez ctes the foregn case Paretti

n argung that,
consttutonay, "|n|o one sha be deprved of x x x berty x x x wthout
due process of aw."
Contrary to hs contenton, hs detenton pror to the concuson of the
extradton proceedngs does not amount to a voaton of hs rght to due
process. We terate the famar doctrne that the essence of due process s
the opportunty to be heard but, at the same tme, pont out that the
doctrne does not aways ca for a prior opportunty to be heard. Where the
crcumstances -- such as those present n an extradton case -- ca for t,
a subsequent opportunty to be heard s enough. In the present case,
respondent w be gven fu opportunty to be heard subsequenty, when
the extradton court hears the Petton for Extradton. Hence, there s no
voaton of hs rght to due process and fundamenta farness.
EN BANC
(G.R. No. 148571. September 24, 2002)
G*+,RN-,N. * .$, UN#.,/ S.A.,S * A-,R#0A, represente&
b1 t2e P23%3pp3ne /epartment of 4ust3!e, petitioner, vs. $on.
GU#55,R-* G. PURGANAN, -ora%es, an& Pres3&3ng 4u&ge,
Reg3ona% .r3a% 0ourt of -an3%a, 6ran!2 427 an& -AR8 6.
4#-,N,9 a.:.a. -AR#* 6A.A0AN 0R,SP*, respondents.
/ , 0 # S # * N
PANGAN#6AN, J.:
In extradton proceedngs, are prospectve extradtees entted to
notce and hearng before warrants for ther arrest can be ssued? Equay
mportant, are they entted to the rght to ba and provsona berty whe
the extradton proceedngs are pendng? In genera, the answer to these
two nove questons s "No." The explanation of and the reasons for, as
we as the exceptionsto, ths rue are ad out n ths Decson.
.2e 0ase
Before us s a Petton for Certorar under Rue 65 of the Rues of
Court, seekng to vod and set asde the Orders dated May 23, 2001
|1|
and
|uy 3, 2001
|2|
ssued by the Regona Tra Court (RTC) of Mana, Branch 42.
|3|
The rst assaed Order set for hearng pettoners appcaton for the
ssuance of a warrant for the arrest of Respondent Mark B. |menez.
The second chaenged Order, on the other hand, drected the
ssuance of a warrant, but at the same tme granted ba to |menez. The
dspostve porton of the Order reads as foows:
"WHEREFORE, n the ght of the foregong, the |Court| nds probabe
cause aganst respondent Mark |menez. Accordngy et a Warrant for the
arrest of the respondent be ssued. Consequenty and takng nto
consderaton Secton 9, Rue 114 of the Revsed Rues of Crmna
Procedure, ths Court xes the reasonabe amount of ba for respondents
temporary berty at ONE MILLION PESOS (Php 1,000,000.00), the same to
be pad n cash.
"Furthermore respondent s drected to mmedatey surrender to ths Court
hs passport and the Bureau of Immgraton and Deportaton s kewse
drected to ncude the name of the respondent n ts Hod Departure
Lst."
|4|
Essentay, the Petton prays for the ftng of the ba Order, the
canceaton of the bond, and the takng of |menez nto ega custody.
.2e a!ts
Ths Petton s reay a seque to GR No. 139465 entted Secretary of
Justice v. Ralph C. antion.
|5|
Pursuant to the exstng RP-US Extradton Treaty,
|6|
the Unted States
Government, through dpomatc channes, sent to the Phppne
Government Note Verbae No. 0522 dated |une 16, 1999, suppemented by
Note Nos. 0597, 0720 and 0809 and accompaned by duy authentcated
documents requestng the extradton of Mark B. |menez, aso known as
Maro Batacan Crespo. Upon recept of the Notes and documents, the
secretary of foregn ahars (SFA) transmtted them to the secretary of
|ustce (SO|) for approprate acton, pursuant to Secton 5 of Presdenta
Decree (PD) No. 1069, aso known as the Extradton Law.
Upon earnng of the request for hs extradton, |menez sought and
was granted a Temporary Restranng Order (TRO) by the RTC of Mana,
Branch 25.
|7|
The TRO prohbted the Department of |ustce (DO|) from ng
wth the RTC a petton for hs extradton. The vadty of the TRO was,
however, assaed by the SO| n a Petton before ths Court n the sad GR
No. 139465. Intay, the Court -- by a vote of 9-6 -- dsmssed the
Petton. The SO| was ordered to furnsh prvate respondent copes of the
extradton request and ts supportng papers and to grant the atter a
reasonabe perod wthn whch to e a comment and supportng evdence.
|8|
Actng on the Moton for Reconsderaton ed by the SO|, ths Court
ssued ts October 17, 2000 Resouton.
|9|
By an dentca vote of 9-6 -- after
three |ustces changed ther votes -- t reconsdered and reversed ts earer
Decson. It hed that prvate respondent was bereft of the rght to notce
and hearng durng the evauaton stage of the extradton process. Ths
Resouton has become na and executory.
Fndng no more ega obstace, the Government of the Unted States
of Amerca, represented by the Phppne DO|, ed wth the RTC on May
18, 2001, the approprate Petton for Extradton whch was docketed as
Extradton Case No. 01192061. The Petton aeged, inter alia! that
|menez was the sub|ect of an arrest warrant ssued by the Unted States
Dstrct Court for the Southern Dstrct of Forda on Apr 15, 1999. The
warrant had been ssued n connecton wth the foowng charges n
Indctment No. 99-00281 CR-SEITZ: (1) conspracy to defraud the Unted
States and to commt certan ohenses n voaton of Tte 18 US Code
Secton 371; (2) tax evason, n voaton of Tte 26 US Code Secton 7201;
(3) wre fraud, n voaton of Tte 18 US Code Sectons 1343 and 2; (4)
fase statements, n voaton of Tte 18 US Code Sectons 1001 and 2; and
(5) ega campagn contrbutons, n voaton of Tte 2 US Code Sectons
441b, 441f and 437g(d) and Tte 18 US Code Secton 2. In order to
prevent the ght of |menez, the Petton prayed for the ssuance of an
order for hs "mmedate arrest" pursuant to Secton 6 of PD No. 1069.
Before the RTC coud act on the Petton, Respondent |menez ed
before t an "Urgent Manfestaton/Ex-Parte Moton,"
|10|
whch prayed that
pettoners appcaton for an arrest warrant be set for hearng.
In ts assaed May 23, 2001 Order, the RTC granted the Moton of
|menez and set the case for hearng on |une 5, 2001. In that hearng,
pettoner manfested ts reservatons on the procedure adopted by the tra
court aowng the accused n an extradton case to be heard pror to the
ssuance of a warrant of arrest.
After the hearng, the court a quo requred the partes to submt ther
respectve memoranda. In hs Memorandum, |menez sought an
aternatve prayer: that n case a warrant shoud ssue, he be aowed to
post ba n the amount of P100,000.
The aternatve prayer of |menez was aso set for hearng on |une 15,
2001. Thereafter, the court beow ssued ts questoned |uy 3, 2001 Order,
drectng the ssuance of a warrant for hs arrest and xng ba for hs
temporary berty at one mon pesos n cash.
|11|
After he had surrendered
hs passport and posted the requred cash bond, |menez was granted
provsona berty va the chaenged Order dated |uy 4, 2001.
|12|
Hence, ths Petton.
|13|
#ssues
Pettoner presents the foowng ssues for the consderaton of ths
Court:
#.
"The pubc respondent acted wthout or n excess of |ursdcton or wth
grave abuse of dscreton amountng to ack or excess of |ursdcton n
adoptng a procedure of rst hearng a potenta extradtee before ssung
an arrest warrant under Secton 6 of PD No. 1069.
##.
"The pubc respondent acted wthout or n excess of |ursdcton or wth
grave abuse of dscreton amountng to ack or excess of |ursdcton n
grantng the prayer for ba and n aowng |menez to go on provsona
berty because:
1. An extradton court has no power to authorze ba, n the absence of
any aw that provdes for such power.
2. Secton 13, Artce III (rght to ba cause) of the 1987 Phppne
Consttuton and Secton 4, Rue 114 (Ba) of the Rues of Court, as
amended, whch |were| reed upon, cannot be used as bases for aowng
ba n extradton proceedngs.
3. The presumpton s aganst ba n extradton proceedngs or
proceedngs eadng to extradton.
4. On the assumpton that ba s avaabe n extradton proceedngs or
proceedngs eadng to extradton, ba s not a matter of rght but ony of
dscreton upon cear showng by the appcant of the exstence of speca
crcumstances.
5. Assumng that ba s a matter of dscreton n extradton proceedngs,
the pubc respondent receved no evdence of speca crcumstances
whch may |ustfy reease on ba.
6. The rsk that |menez w ee s hgh, and no speca crcumstance
exsts that w engender a we-founded beef that he w not ee.
7. The condtons attached to the grant of ba are nehectua and do not
ensure compance by the Phppnes wth ts obgatons under the RP-US
Extradton Treaty.
8. The Court of Appeas Resouton promugated on May 10, 2001 n the
case entted "duardo #. Rodrigue$ et al. vs. #he %on. Presiding Judge!
R#C! &ranch '(! )anila!* CA-G.R. SP No. 64589, reed upon by the pubc
respondent n grantng ba, had been recaed before the ssuance of the
sub|ect ba orders."
|14|
In sum, the substantve questons that ths Court w address are: (1)
whether |menez s entted to notce and hearng before a warrant for hs
arrest can be ssued, and (2) whether he s entted to ba and to
provsona berty whe the extradton proceedngs are
pendng. Premnary, we sha take up the aeged prematurty of the
Petton for Certorar arsng from pettoners faure to e a Moton for
Reconsderaton n the RTC and to seek reef n the Court of Appeas (CA),
nstead of n ths Court.
|15|
We sha aso premnary dscuss ve
extradton postuates that w gude us n dsposng of the substantve
ssues.
.2e 0ourt;s Ru%3ng
The Petton s mertorous.
Pre%3m3nar1 -atters
Alleged Prematurity of Present Petition
Pettoner submts the foowng |ustcatons for not ng a Moton for
Reconsderaton n the Extradton Court: "(1) the ssues were fuy
consdered by such court after requrng the partes to submt ther
respectve memoranda and poston papers on the matter and thus, the
ng of a reconsderaton moton woud serve no usefu purpose; (2) the
assaed orders are a patent nuty, absent factua and ega bass therefor;
and (3) the need for reef s extremey urgent, as the passage of sumcent
tme woud gve |menez ampe opportunty to escape and avod
extradton; and (4) the ssues rased are purey of aw."
|16|
For resortng drecty to ths Court nstead of the CA, pettoner
submts the foowng reasons: "(1) even f the petton s odged wth the
Court of Appeas and such appeate court takes cognzance of the ssues
and decdes them, the partes woud st brng the matter to ths Honorabe
Court to have the ssues resoved once and for a |and| to have a bndng
precedent that a ower courts ought to foow; (2) the Honorabe Court of
Appeas had n one case
|17|
rued on the ssue by dsaowng ba but the
court beow refused to recognze the decson as a |udca gude and a
other courts mght kewse adopt the same atttude of refusa; and (3)
there are pendng ssues on ba both n the extradton courts and the
Court of Appeas, whch, uness guded by the decson that ths Honorabe
Court w render n ths case, woud resove to grant ba n favor of the
potenta extradtees and woud gve them opportunty to ee and thus,
cause adverse ehect on the abty of the Phppnes to compy wth ts
obgatons under exstng extradton treates."
|18|
As a genera rue, a petton for certorar before a hgher court w not
prosper uness the nferor court has been gven, through a moton for
reconsderaton, a chance to correct the errors mputed to t. Ths rue,
though, has certan exceptons: (1) when the ssue rased s purey of aw,
(2) when pubc nterest s nvoved, or (3) n case of urgency.
|19|
As a fourth
excepton, the Court has aso rued that the ng of a moton for
reconsderaton before avament of the remedy of certorar s not a sine
qua non! when the questons rased are the same as those that have
aready been squarey argued and exhaustvey passed upon by the ower
court.
|20|
Asde from beng of ths nature, the ssues n the present case aso
nvove pure questons of aw that are of pubc nterest. Hence, a moton
for reconsderaton may be dspensed wth.
Lkewse, ths Court has aowed a drect nvocaton of ts orgna
|ursdcton to ssue wrts of certorar when there are speca and mportant
reasons therefor.
|21|
In +ortich v. Corona
|22|
we stated:
"|T|he Supreme Court has the fu dscretonary power to take cognzance
of the petton ed drecty |before| t f compeng reasons, or the nature
and mportance of the ssues rased, warrant. Ths has been the |udca
pocy to be observed and whch has been reterated n subsequent cases,
namey: ,y vs. Contreras! et. al.! #orres vs. -rran$, &ercero vs. .e /u$man,
and, -dvincula vs. egaspi! et. al. As we have further stated nCuaresma:
x x x. A drect nvocaton of the Supreme Courts orgna |ursdcton to
ssue these wrts shoud be aowed ony when there are speca and
mportant reasons therefor, ceary and speccay set out n the
petton. Ths s estabshed pocy. x x x.
"Pursuant to sad |udca pocy, we resove to take prmary |ursdcton
over the present petton n the nterest of speedy |ustce and to avod
future tgatons so as to prompty put an end to the present controversy
whch, as correcty observed by pettoners, has sparked natona nterest
because of the magntude of the probem created by the ssuance of the
assaed resouton. Moreover, x x x requrng the pettoners to e ther
petton rst wth the Court of Appeas woud ony resut n a waste of tme
and money.
"That the Court has the power to set asde ts own rues n the hgher
nterests of |ustce s we-entrenched n our |ursprudence. We reterate
what we sad n Pic$on vs. Court of -ppeals0
|23|
Be t remembered that rues of procedure are but mere toos desgned to
factate the attanment of |ustce. Ther strct and rgd appcaton, whch
woud resut n techncates that tend to frustrate rather than promote
substanta |ustce, must aways be avoded. Tme and agan, ths Court
has suspended ts own rues and excepted a partcuar case from ther
operaton whenever the hgher nterests of |ustce so requre. In the
nstant petton, we forego a engthy dsquston of the proper procedure
that shoud have been taken by the partes nvoved and proceed drecty
to the merts of the case.
In a number of other exceptona cases,
|24|
we hed as foows:
"Ths Court has orgna |ursdcton, concurrent wth that of Regona Tra
Courts and the Court of Appeas, over pettons for certiorari,
prohbton, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus, and we entertan
drect resort to us n cases where speca and mportant reasons or
exceptona and compeng crcumstances |ustfy the same."
In the nterest of |ustce and to sette once and for a the mportant
ssue of ba n extradton proceedngs, we deem t best to take cognzance
of the present case. Such proceedngs consttute a matter of rst
mpresson over whch there s, as yet, no oca |ursprudence to gude
ower courts.
Five Postulates of !tradition
The substantve ssues rased n ths case requre an nterpretaton or
constructon of the treaty and the aw on extradton. A cardna rue n the
nterpretaton of a treaty or a aw s to ascertan and gve ehect to ts
ntent.
|25|
Snce PD 1069 s ntended as a gude for the mpementaton of
extradton treates to whch the Phppnes s a sgnatory,
|26|
understandng
certan postuates of extradton w ad us n propery decdng the ssues
rased here.
1. ,<tra&3t3on #s a -a=or #nstrument for t2e Suppress3on of
0r3me.
+irst, extradton treates are entered nto for the purpose of
suppressng crme
|27|
by factatng the arrest and the custoda
transfer
|28|
of a fugtve
|29|
from one state to the other.
Wth the advent of easer and faster means of nternatona trave, the
ght of amuent crmnas from one country to another for the purpose of
commttng crme and evadng prosecuton has become more
frequent. Accordngy, governments are ad|ustng ther methods of deang
wth crmnas and crmes that transcend nternatona boundares.
Today, "a ma|orty of natons n the word communty have come to
ook upon extradition as the ma1or e2ective instrument of international co3
operation in the suppression of crime."
|30|
It s the ony reguar system that
has been devsed to return fugtves to the |ursdcton of a court
competent to try them n accordance wth muncpa and nternatona aw.
|31|
"An mportant practca ehect x x x of the recognton of the prncpe that
crmnas shoud be restored to a |ursdcton competent to try and punsh
them s that the number of crmnas seekng refuge abroad w be
reduced. For to the extent that emcent means of detecton and the threat
of punshment pay a sgncant roe n the deterrence of crme wthn the
terrtora mts of a State, so the exstence of ehectve extradton
arrangements and the consequent certanty of return to the ocus delicti
commissi pay a correspondng roe n the deterrence of ght abroad n
order to escape the consequence of crme. x x x. From an absence of
extradton arrangements ght abroad by the ngenous crmna receves
drect encouragement and thus ndrecty does the commsson of crme
tsef."
|32|
In Secretary v. antion
|33|
we expaned:
"The Phppnes aso has a natona nterest to hep n suppressng crmes
and one way to do t s to factate the extradton of persons covered by
treates duy entered |nto| by our government. More and more, crmes are
becomng the concern of one word. Laws nvovng crmes and crme
preventon are undergong unversazaton. One manfest purpose of ths
trend towards gobazaton s to deny easy refuge to a crmna whose
actvtes threaten the peace and progress of cvzed countres. It s to the
great nterest of the Phppnes to be part of ths rreversbe movement n
ght of ts vunerabty to crmes, especay transnatona crmes."
Indeed, n ths era of gobazaton, easer and faster nternatona
trave, and an expandng rng of nternatona crmes and crmnas, we
cannot ahord to be an soatonst state. We need to cooperate wth other
states n order to mprove our chances of suppressng crme n our own
country.
2. .2e Re>uest3ng State ?3%% A!!or& /ue Pro!ess to
t2e A!!use&
Second, an extradton treaty presupposes that both partes thereto
have examned, and that both accept and trust, each others ega system
and |udca process.
|34|
More pontedy, our duy authorzed
representatves sgnature on an extradton treaty sgnes our condence
n the capacty and the wngness of the other state to protect the basc
rghts of the person sought to be extradted.
|35|
That sgnature sgnes our
fu fath that the accused w be gven, upon extradton to the requestng
state, a reevant and basc rghts n the crmna proceedngs that w take
pace theren; otherwse, the treaty woud not have been sgned, or woud
have been drecty attacked for ts unconsttutonaty.
@. .2e Pro!ee&3ngs Are Su3 Gener3s
#hird, as ponted out n Secretary of Justice v. antion,
|36|
extradton
proceedngs are not crmna n nature. In crmna proceedngs, the
consttutona rghts of the accused are at fore; n extradton whch s sui
generis 33 n a cass by tsef -- they are not.
"An extradton |proceedng| s sui generis. It s not a crmna proceedng
whch w ca nto operaton a the rghts of an accused as guaranteed by
the B of Rghts. To begn wth, the process of extradton does not nvove
the determnaton of the gut or nnocence of an accused. Hs gut or
nnocence w be ad|udged n the court of the state where he w be
extradted. Hence, as a rue, consttutona rghts that are ony reevant to
determne the gut or nnocence of an accused cannot be nvoked by an
extradtee x x x.
x x x x x x x x x
"There are other dherences between an extradton proceedng and a
crmna proceedng. An extradton proceedng s summary n nature whe
crmna proceedngs nvove a fu-bown tra. In contradstncton to a
crmna proceedng, the rues of evdence n an extradton proceedng
aow admsson of evdence under ess strngent standards. In terms of
the quantum of evdence to be satsed, a crmna case requres proof
beyond reasonabe doubt for convcton whe a fugtve may be ordered
extradted upon showng of the exstence of a prma face case. Fnay,
unke n a crmna case where |udgment becomes executory upon beng
rendered na, n an extradton proceedng, our courts may ad|udge an
ndvdua extradtabe but the Presdent has the na dscreton to
extradte hm. The Unted States adheres to a smar practce whereby the
Secretary of State exercses wde dscreton n baancng the equtes of the
case and the demands of the natons foregn reatons before makng the
utmate decson to extradte."
Gven the foregong, t s evdent that the extradton court s not
caed upon to ascertan the gut or the nnocence of the person sought to
be extradted.
|37|
Such determnaton durng the extradton proceedngs
w ony resut n needess dupcaton and deay. Extradton s merey a
measure of nternatona |udca assstance through whch a person
charged wth or convcted of a crme s restored to a |ursdcton wth the
best cam to try that person. It s not part of the functon of the assstng
authortes to enter nto questons that are the prerogatve of that
|ursdcton.
|38|
The ultimate purpose of extradition proceedings in court is
only to determine whether the extradition request complies with the
"xtradition #reaty! and whether the person sought is extraditable.
|39|
4. 0omp%3an!e S2a%% 6e 3n Goo& a3t2.
+ourth, our executve branch of government vountary entered nto
the Extradton Treaty, and our egsatve branch rated t. Hence, the
Treaty carres the presumpton that ts mpementaton w serve the
natona nterest.
Fung our obgatons under the Extradton Treaty promotes
comty
|40|
wth the requestng state. On the other hand, faure to fu our
obgatons thereunder pants a bad mage of our country before the word
communty. Such faure woud dscourage other states from enterng nto
treates wth us, partcuary an extradton treaty that hnges on recprocty.
|41|
Very, we are bound by pacta sunt servanda to compy n good fath
wth our obgatons under the Treaty.
|42|
Ths prncpe requres that we
dever the accused to the requestng country f the condtons precedent to
extradton, as set forth n the Treaty, are satsed. In other words, "|t|he
demandng government, when t has done a that the treaty and the aw
requre t to do, s entted to the devery of the accused on the ssue of the
proper warrant, and the other government s under obgaton to make the
surrender."
|43|
Accordngy, the Phppnes must be ready and n a poston
to dever the accused, shoud t be found proper.
5. .2ere #s an Un&er%13ng R3s: of %3g2t
+ifth, persons to be extradted are presumed to be ght rsks. Ths
prma face presumpton nds renforcement n the experence
|44|
of the
executve branch: nothng short of connement can ensure that the
accused w not ee the |ursdcton of the requested state n order to
thwart ther extradton to the requestng state.
The present extradton case further vadates the premse that
persons sought to be extradted have a propensty to ee. Indeed,
extradton hearngs woud not even begn, f ony the accused were wng
to submt to tra n the requestng country.
|45|
Pror acts of heren
respondent -- (1) eavng the requestng state rght before the concuson of
hs ndctment proceedngs there; and (2) remanng n the requested state
despte earnng that the requestng state s seekng hs return and that the
crmes he s charged wth are baabe -- eoquenty speak of hs averson
to the processes n the requestng state, as we as hs predsposton to
avod them at a cost. These crcumstances pont to an ever-present,
underyng hgh rsk of ght. He has demonstrated that he has the
capacty and the w to ee. Havng ed once, what s there to stop hm,
gven sumcent opportunty, from eeng a second tme?
3rst Substant3ve #ssue"
"s Respondent ntitled to #otice and $earing
%efore the "ssuance of a &arrant of Arrest'
Pettoner contends that the procedure adopted by the RTC --nformng
the accused, a fugtve from |ustce, that an Extradton Petton has been
ed aganst hm, and that pettoner s seekng hs arrest -- gves hm
notce to escape and to avod extradton. Moreover, pettoner peads that
such procedure may set a dangerous precedent, n that those sought to be
extradted -- ncudng terrorsts, mass murderers and war crmnas -- may
nvoke t n future extradton cases.
On the other hand, Respondent |menez argues that he shoud not be
hurredy and arbtrary deprved of hs consttutona rght to berty
wthout due process. He further asserts that there s as yet no specc aw
or rue settng forth the procedure pror to the ssuance of a warrant of
arrest, after the petton for extradton has been ed n court; ergo, the
formuaton of that procedure s wthn the dscreton of the presdng
|udge.
Both partes cte Secton 6 of PD 1069 n support of ther
arguments. It states:
"SEC. 6. 4ssuance of Summons5 #emporary -rrest5 %earing! Service of
6otices.- (1) Immedatey upon recept of the petton, the presdng |udge
of the court sha, as soon as practcabe, summon the accused to appear
and to answer the petton on the day and hour xed n the order. |H|e
may 3ssue a Aarrant for t2e 3mme&3ate arrest of t2e a!!use& A23!2
ma1 be serve& an1 A2ere A3t23n t2e P23%3pp3nes 3f 3t appears to
t2e pres3&3ng =u&ge t2at t2e 3mme&3ate arrest an& temporar1
&etent3on of t2e a!!use& A3%% best serve t2e en&s of =ust3!e. Upon
recept of the answer, or shoud the accused after havng receved the
summons fa to answer wthn the tme xed, the presdng |udge shall
hear the case or set another date for the hearng thereof.
"(2) The order and notce as we as a copy of the warrant of arrest, f
ssued, sha be prompty served each upon the accused and the attorney
havng charge of the case." (Emphass ours)
Does ths provson sancton RTC |udge Purganans act of mmedatey
settng for hearng the ssuance of a warrant of arrest? We rue n the
negatve.
1. *n t2e 6as3s of t2e ,<tra&3t3on 5aA
It s sgncant to note that Secton 6 of PD 1069, our Extradton Law,
uses the word "mmedate" to quafy the arrest of the accused. Ths
quacaton woud be rendered nugatory by settng for hearng the
ssuance of the arrest warrant. Hearng entas sendng notces to the
opposng partes,
|46|
recevng facts and arguments
|47|
from them,
|48|
and
gvng them tme to prepare and present such facts and arguments. Arrest
subsequent to a hearng can no onger be consdered "mmedate." The
aw coud not have ntended the word as a mere superuty but, on the
whoe, as a means of mpartng a sense of urgency and swftness n the
determnaton of whether a warrant of arrest shoud be ssued.
By usng the phrase "f t appears," the aw further conveys that
accuracy s not as mportant as speed at such eary stage. The tra court
s not expected to make an exhaustive determnaton to ferret out the true
and actua stuaton, mmedatey upon the ng of the petton. From the
knowedge and the matera then avaabe to t, the court s expected
merey to get a good rst mpresson -- a prima facie fnding -- sumcent to
make a speedy nta determnaton as regards the arrest and detenton of
the accused.
Attached to the Petton for Extradton, wth a Certcate of
Authentcaton among others, were the foowng: (1) Annex H, the Amdavt
executed on May 26, 1999 by Mr. Mchae E. Savage -- tra attorney n the
Campagn Fnancng Task Force of the Crmna Dvson of the US
Department of |ustce; (2) Annexes H to G, evdentary Appendces of
varous exhbts that consttuted evdence of the crmes charged n the
Indctment, wth Exhbts 1 to 120 (duy authentcated exhbts that
consttuted evdence of the crmes charged n the Indctment); (3) Annex
BB, the Exhbt I "Appendx of Wtness |excerpts| Statements Referenced n
the Amdavt of Angea Byers" and encosed Statements n two
voumes; (4) Annex GG, the Exhbt | "Tabe of Contents for Suppementa
Evdentary Appendx" wth encosed Exhbts 121 to 132; and (5) Annex
MM, the Exhbt L "Appendx of Wtness |excerpts| Statements Referenced
n the Amdavt of Betty Steward" and encosed Statements n two voumes.
|49|
It s evdent that respondent |udge coud have aready gotten an
mpresson from these records adequate for hm to make an nta
determnaton of whether the accused was someone who shoud
mmedatey be arrested n order to "best serve the ends of |ustce." He
coud have determned whether such facts and crcumstances exsted as
woud ead a reasonaby dscreet and prudent person to beeve that the
extradton request was prma face mertorous. In pont of fact, he
actuay concuded from these supportng documents that "probabe
cause" did exst. In the second questoned Order, he stated:
"In the nstant petton, the documents sent by the US Government n
support of |ts| request for extradton of heren respondent are enough to
convnce the Court of the exstence of probabe cause to proceed wth the
hearng aganst the extradtee."
|50|
We stress that the prma face exstence of probabe cause for hearng
the petton and, a priori, for ssung an arrest warrant was aready evdent
from the Petton tsef and ts supportng documents. Hence, after havng
aready determned therefrom that a prima facie fnding dd exst,
respondent |udge gravey abused hs dscreton when he set the matter for
hearng upon moton of |menez.
|51|
Moreover, the aw speces that the court sets a hearng upon recept
of the answer or upon faure of the accused to answer after recevng the
summons. In connecton wth the matter of mmedate arrest, however,
the word "hearng" s notaby absent from the provson. Evdenty, had
the hodng of a hearng at that stage been ntended, the aw coud have
easy so provded. It aso bears emphaszng at ths pont that extradton
proceedngs are summary
|52|
n nature. Hence, the sence of the Law and
the Treaty eans to the more reasonabe nterpretaton that there s no
ntenton to punctuate wth a hearng every tte step n the entre
proceedngs.
"It s taken for granted that the contractng partes ntend somethng
reasonabe and somethng not nconsstent wth generay recognzed
prncpes of Internatona Law, nor wth prevous treaty obgatons towards
thrd States. If, therefore, the meanng of a treaty s ambguous, the
reasonabe meanng s to be preferred to the unreasonabe, the more
reasonabe to the ess reasonabe x x x ."
|53|
Very, as argued by pettoner, sendng to persons sought to be
extradted a notce of the request for ther arrest and settng t for hearng
at some future date woud gve them ampe opportunty to prepare and
execute an escape. Nether the Treaty nor the Law coud have ntended
that consequence, for the very purpose of both woud have been defeated
by the escape of the accused from the requested state.
2. *n t2e 6as3s of t2e 0onst3tut3on
Even Secton 2 of Artce III of our Consttuton, whch s nvoked by
|menez, does not requre a notce or a hearng before the ssuance of a
warrant of arrest. It provdes:
"Sec. 2. The rght of the peope to be secure n ther persons, houses,
papers, and ehects aganst unreasonabe searches and sezures of
whatever nature and for any purpose sha be nvoabe, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest sha ssue except upon probabe cause to be
determned personay by the |udge after examnaton under oath or
amrmaton of the companant and the wtnesses he may produce, and
partcuary descrbng the pace to be searched and the persons or thngs
to be sezed."
. To determne probabe cause for the ssuance of arrest warrants, the
Consttuton tsef requres ony the examnaton -- under oath or
amrmaton -- of complainants and the witnesses they may produce. There
s no requrement to notfy and hear the accused before the ssuance of
warrants of arrest
In %o v. People
|54|
and n a the cases cted theren, never was a |udge
requred to go to the extent of conductng a hearng |ust for the purpose of
personay determnng probabe cause for the ssuance of a warrant of
arrest. A we requred was that the "|udge must have sumcent supportng
documents upon whch to make hs ndependent |udgment, or at the very
east, upon whch to verfy the ndngs of the prosecutor as to the
exstence of probabe cause."
|55|
In 7ebb v. .e eon,
|56|
the Court categorcay stated that a |udge was
not supposed to conduct a hearng before ssung a warrant of arrest:
"Agan, we stress that before ssung warrants of arrest, |udges merey
determne personay the probabty, not the certanty of gut of an
accused. In dong so, 1udges do not conduct a de novo hearing to
determine the existence of probable cause. They |ust personay revew
the nta determnaton of the prosecutor ndng a probabe cause to see
f t s supported by substanta evdence."
At most, n cases of cear nsumcency of evdence on record, |udges
merey further examne complainants and their wtnesses.
|57|
In the present
case, vadatng the act of respondent |udge and nsttutng the practce of
hearng the accused and hs wtnesses at ths eary stage woud be
dscordant wth the ratonae for the entre system. If the accused were
aowed to be heard and necessary to present evdence durng the prima
facie determnaton for the ssuance of a warrant of arrest, what woud stop
hm from presentng hs entre pethora of defenses at ths stage -- f he so
desres -- n hs ehort to negate a prima facie fnding? Such a procedure
coud convert the determnaton of a prma face case nto a fu-bown tra
of the entre proceedngs and possby make tra of the man case
superuous. Ths scenaro s aso anathema to the summary nature of
extradtons.
That the case under consderaton s an extradton and not a crmna
acton s not sumcent to |ustfy the adopton of a set of procedures more
protectve of the accused. If a dherent procedure were caed for at a, a
more restrctve one -- not the opposte -- woud be |usted n vew of
respondents demonstrated predsposton to ee.
Snce ths s a matter of rst mpresson, we deem t wse to restate
the proper procedure:
Upon recept of a petton for extradton and ts supportng
documents, the |udge must study them and make, as soon as possbe,
a prima facie fnding whether (a) they are sumcent n form and substance,
(b) they show compance wth the Extradton Treaty and Law, and (c) the
person sought s extradtabe. At hs dscreton, the |udge may requre the
submsson of further documentaton or may personay examne the
amants and wtnesses of the pettoner. If, n spte of ths study and
examnaton, no prima facie fnding
|58|
s possbe, the petton may be
dsmssed at the dscreton of the |udge.
On the other hand, f the presence of a prma face case s
determned, then the magstrate must mmedatey ssue a warrant for the
arrest of the extradtee, who s at the same tme summoned to answer the
petton and to appear at schedued summary hearngs. Pror to the
ssuance of the warrant, the |udge must not nform or notfy the potenta
extradtee of the pendency of the petton, est the atter be gven the
opportunty to escape and frustrate the proceedngs. In our opnon, the
foregong procedure w "best serve the ends of |ustce" n extradton
cases.
Se!on& Substant3ve #ssue"
"s Respondent ntitled to %ail'
Artce III, Secton 13 of the Consttuton, s worded as foows:
"Art. III, Sec. 13. A persons, except those charged wth ohenses
punshabe by reclusion perpetua when evdence of gut s strong, sha,
before convcton, be baabe by sumcent suretes, or be reeased on
recognzance as may be provded by aw. The rght to ba sha not be
mpared even when the prvege of the wrt of habeas corpus s
suspended. Excessve ba sha not be requred."
Respondent Mark B. |menez mantans that ths consttutona
provson secures the rght to ba of all persons, ncudng those sought to
be extradted. Supposedy, the ony exceptons are the ones charged wth
ohenses punshabe wth reclusion perpetua! when evdence of gut s
strong. He aso aeges the reevance to the present case of Secton 4
|59|
of
Rue 114 of the Rues of Court whch, nsofar as practcabe and consstent
wth the summary nature of extradton proceedngs, sha aso appy
accordng to Secton 9 of PD 1069.
On the other hand, pettoner cams that there s no provson n the
Phppne Consttuton grantng the rght to ba to a person who s the
sub|ect of an extradton request and arrest warrant.
!tradition (i)erent from *rdinary Criminal Proceedings
We agree wth pettoner. As suggested by the use of the word
"convcton," the consttutona provson on ba quoted above, as we as
Secton 4 of Rue 114 of the Rues of Court, appes ony when a person has
been arrested and detaned for voaton of Phppne crmna aws. It does
not appy to extradton proceedngs, because extradton courts do not
render |udgments of convcton or acqutta.
Moreover, the consttutona rght to ba "ows from the presumpton
of nnocence n favor of every accused who shoud not be sub|ected to the
oss of freedom as thereafter he woud be entted to acqutta, uness hs
gut be proved beyond reasonabe doubt."
|60|
It foows that the
consttutona provson on ba w not appy to a case ke extradton,
where the presumpton of nnocence s not at ssue.
The provson n the Consttuton statng that the "rght to ba sha not
be mpared even when the prvege of the wrt of habeas corpus s
suspended" does not detract from the rue that the consttutona rght to
ba s avaabe ony n crmna proceedngs. It must be noted that the
suspenson of the prvege of the wrt of habeas corpus nds appcaton
"ony to persons |udcay charged for rebeon or ohenses nherent n or
drecty connected wth nvason."
|61|
Hence, the second sentence n the
consttutona provson on ba merey emphaszes the rght to ba n
crmna proceedngs for the aforementoned ohenses. It cannot be taken
to mean that the rght s avaabe even n extradton proceedngs that are
not crmna n nature.
That the ohenses for whch |menez s sought to be extradted are
baabe n the Unted States s not an argument to grant hm one n the
present case. To stress, extradton proceedngs are separate and dstnct
from the tra for the ohenses for whch he s charged. He shoud appy for
ba before the courts tryng the crmna cases aganst hm, not before the
extradton court.
#o +iolation of (ue Process
Respondent |menez ctes the foregn case Paretti
|62|
n argung that,
consttutonay, "|n|o one sha be deprved of x x x berty x x x wthout
due process of aw."
Contrary to hs contenton, hs detenton pror to the concuson of the
extradton proceedngs does not amount to a voaton of hs rght to due
process. We terate the famar doctrne that the essence of due process s
the opportunty to be heard
|63|
but, at the same tme, pont out that the
doctrne does not aways ca for a prior opportunty to be heard.
|64|
Where
the crcumstances -- such as those present n an extradton case -- ca for
t, a subsequent opportunty to be heard s enough.
|65|
In the present case,
respondent w be gven fu opportunty to be heard subsequenty, when
the extradton court hears the Petton for Extradton. Hence, there s no
voaton of hs rght to due process and fundamenta farness.
Contrary to the contenton of |menez, we nd no arbtrarness, ether,
n the mmedate deprvaton of hs berty pror to hs beng heard. That
hs arrest and detenton w not be arbtrary s sumcenty ensured by (1)
the DO|s ng n court the Petton wth ts supportng documents after a
determnaton that the extradton request meets the requrements of the
aw and the reevant treaty; (2) the extradton |udges ndependent prma
face determnaton that hs arrest w best serve the ends of |ustce before
the ssuance of a warrant for hs arrest; and (3) hs opportunty, once he s
under the courts custody, to appy for ba as an excepton to the no-nta-
ba rue.
It s aso worth notng that before the US government requested the
extradton of respondent, proceedngs had aready been conducted n that
country. But because he eft the |ursdcton of the requestng state before
those proceedngs coud be competed, t was hndered from contnung
wth the due processes prescrbed under ts aws. Hs nvocaton of due
process now has thus become hoow. He aready had that opportunty n
the requestng state; yet, nstead of takng t, he ran away.
In ths ght, woud t be proper and |ust for the government to
ncrease the rsk of voatng ts treaty obgatons n order to accord
Respondent |menez hs persona berty n the span of tme that t takes to
resove the Petton for Extradton? Hs supposed mmedate deprvaton of
berty wthout the due process that he had prevousy shunned paes
aganst the governments nterest n fung ts Extradton Treaty
obgatons and n cooperatng wth the word communty n the
suppresson of crme. Indeed, "|c|onsttutona bertes do not exst n a
vacuum; the due process rghts accorded to ndvduas must be carefuy
baanced aganst exgent and papabe government nterests."
|66|
Too, we cannot aow our country to be a haven for fugtves, cowards
and weakngs who, nstead of facng the consequences of ther actons,
choose to run and hde. Hence, t woud not be good pocy to ncrease the
rsk of voatng our treaty obgatons f, through overprotecton or
excessvey bera treatment, persons sought to be extradted are abe to
evade arrest or escape from our custody. In the absence of any provson --
n the Consttuton, the aw or the treaty -- expressy guaranteeng the rght
to ba n extradton proceedngs, adoptng the practce of not grantng
them ba, as a genera rue, woud be a step towards deterrng fugtves
from comng to the Phppnes to hde from or evade ther prosecutors.
The dena of ba as a matter of course n extradton cases fas nto
pace wth and gves fe to Artce 14
|67|
of the Treaty, snce ths practce
woud encourage the accused to vountary surrender to the requestng
state to cut short ther detenton here. Lkewse, ther detenton pendng
the resouton of extradton proceedngs woud fa nto pace wth the
emphass of the Extradton Law on the summary nature of extradton
cases and the need for ther speedy dsposton.
,<!ept3ons to t2e BNo 6a3%C Ru%e
The rue, we repeat, s that ba s not a matter of rght n extradton
cases. However, the |udcary has the consttutona duty to curb grave
abuse of dscreton
|68|
and tyranny, as we as the power to promugate
rues to protect and enforce consttutona rghts.
|69|
Furthermore, we
beeve that the rght to due process s broad enough to ncude the grant
of basc farness to extradtees. Indeed, the rght to due process extends
to the "fe, berty or property" of every person. It s "dynamc and
resent, adaptabe to every stuaton cang for ts appcaton."
|70|
Accordngy and to best serve the ends of |ustce, we beeve and so
hod that, after a potenta extradtee has been arrested or paced under
the custody of the aw, ba may be apped for and granted as
an exception, ony upon a cear and convncng showng (1) that, once
granted ba, the appcant w not be a ght rsk or a danger to the
communty; and (2) that there exst speca, humantaran and compeng
crcumstances
|71|
ncudng, as a matter of recprocty, those cted by the
hghest court n the requestng state when t grants provsona berty n
extradton cases theren.
Snce ths excepton has no express or specc statutory bass, and
snce t s derved essentay from genera prncpes of |ustce and farness,
the appcant bears the burden of provng the above two-tered
requrement wth carty, precson and emphatc forcefuness. The Court
reazes that extradton s bascay an executve, not a |udca,
responsbty arsng from the presdenta power to conduct foregn
reatons. In ts barest concept, t partakes of the nature of poce
assstance amongst states, whch s not normay a |udca
prerogatve. Hence, any ntruson by the courts nto the exercse of ths
power shoud be characterzed by cauton, so that the vta nternatona
and batera nterests of our country w not be unreasonaby mpeded or
compromsed. In short, whe ths Court s ever protectve of "the sportng
dea of far pay," t aso recognzes the mts of ts own prerogatves and
the need to fu nternatona obgatons.
Aong ths ne, |menez contends that there are speca crcumstances
that are compeng enough for the Court to grant hs request for
provsona reease on ba. We have carefuy examned these
crcumstances and sha now dscuss them.
1. A%%ege& /3senfran!23sement
Whe hs extradton was pendng, Respondent |menez was eected as
a member of the House of Representatves. On that bass, he cams that
hs detenton w dsenfranchse hs Mana dstrct of 600,000
resdents. We are not persuaded. In People v. Jalos1os,
|72|
the Court has
aready debunked the dsenfranchsement argument when t rued thus:
"When the voters of hs dstrct eected the accused-appeant to Congress,
they dd so wth fu awareness of the mtatons on hs freedom of
acton. They dd so wth the knowedge that he coud acheve ony such
egsatve resuts whch he coud accompsh wthn the connes of
prson. To gve a more drastc ustraton, f voters eect a person wth fu
knowedge that he s suherng from a termna ness, they do so knowng
that at any tme, he may no onger serve hs fu term n omce.
"In the utmate anayss, the ssue before us bos down to a queston of
consttutona equa protecton.
"The Consttuton guarantees: x x x nor sha any person be dened the
equa protecton of aws. Ths smpy means that a persons smary
stuated sha be treated ake both n rghts en|oyed and responsbtes
mposed. The organs of government may not show any undue favortsm
or hostty to any person. Nether partaty nor pre|udce sha be
dspayed.
"Does beng an eectve omca resut n a substanta dstncton that
aows dherent treatment? Is beng a Congressman a substanta
dherentaton whch removes the accused-appeant as a prsoner from the
same cass as a persons vady conned under aw?
"The performance of egtmate and even essenta dutes by pubc omcers
has never been an excuse to free a person vady |from| prson. The
dutes mposed by the mandate of the peope are mutfarous. The
accused-appeant asserts that the duty to egsate ranks hghest n the
herarchy of government. The accused-appeant s ony one of 250
members of the House of Representatves, not to menton the 24 members
of the Senate, charged wth the dutes of egsaton. Congress contnues
to functon we n the physca absence of one or a few of ts
members. Dependng on the exgency of Government that has to be
addressed, the Presdent or the Supreme Court can aso be deemed the
hghest for that partcuar duty. The mportance of a functon depends on
the need for ts exercse. The duty of a mother to nurse her nfant s most
compeng under the aw of nature. A doctor wth unque sks has the
duty to save the ves of those wth a partcuar amcton. An eectve
governor has to serve provnca consttuents. A poce omcer must
mantan peace and order. Never has the ca of a partcuar duty fted a
prsoner nto a dherent casscaton from those others who are vady
restraned by aw.
"A strct scrutny of casscatons s essenta est|,| wttngy or otherwse,
nsdous dscrmnatons are made n favor of or aganst groups or types of
ndvduas.
"The Court cannot vadate badges of nequaty. The necesstes mposed
by pubc wefare may |ustfy exercse of government authorty to reguate
even f thereby certan groups may pausby assert that ther nterests are
dsregarded.
"We, therefore, nd that eecton to the poston of Congressman s not a
reasonabe casscaton n crmna aw enforcement. The functons and
dutes of the omce are not substanta dstnctons whch ft hm from the
cass of prsoners nterrupted n ther freedom and restrcted n berty of
movement. Lawfu arrest and connement are germane to the purposes of
the aw and appy to a those beongng to the same cass."
|73|
It must be noted that even before prvate respondent ran for and won
a congressona seat n Mana, t was aready of pubc knowedge that the
Unted States was requestng hs extradton. Hence, hs consttuents were
or shoud have been prepared for the consequences of the extradton case
aganst ther representatve, ncudng hs detenton pendng the na
resouton of the case. Premses consdered and n ne wth Jalos1os, we
are constraned to rue aganst hs cam that hs eecton to pubc omce s
by tsef a compeng reason to grant hm ba.
2. Ant3!3pate& /e%a1
Respondent |menez further contends that because the extradton
proceedngs are engthy, t woud be unfar to conne hm durng the
pendency of the case. Agan we are not convnced. We must emphasze
that extradton cases are summary n nature. They are resorted to merey
to determne whether the extradton petton and ts annexes conform to
the Extradton Treaty, not to determne gut or nnocence. Nether s t, as
a rue, ntended to address ssues reevant to the consttutona rghts
avaabe to the accused n a crmna acton.
We are not overrung the possbty that pettoner may, n bad fath,
unduy deay the proceedngs. Ths s qute another matter that s not at
ssue here. Thus, any further dscusson of ths pont woud be merey
antcpatory and academc.
However, f the deay s due to maneuverngs of respondent, wth a
the more reason woud the grant of ba not be |usted. Gvng premum
to deay by consderng t as a speca crcumstance for the grant of ba
woud be tantamount to gvng hm the power to grant ba to hmsef. It
woud aso encourage hm to stretch out and unreasonaby deay the
extradton proceedngs even more. Ths we cannot aow.
@. Not a %3g2t R3s:D
|menez further cams that he s not a ght rsk. To support ths
cam, he stresses that he earned of the extradton request n |une 1999;
yet, he has not ed the country. True, he has not actuay ed durng the
premnary stages of the request for hs extradton. Yet, ths fact cannot
be taken to mean that he w not ee as the process moves forward to ts
concuson, as he hears the footsteps of the requestng government nchng
coser and coser. That he has not yet ed from the Phppnes cannot be
taken to mean that he w stand hs ground and st be wthn reach of our
government f and when it matters; that s, upon the resouton of the
Petton for Extradton.
In any event, t s setted that ba may be apped for and granted by
the tra court at anytme after the appcant has been taken nto custody
and pror to |udgment, even after ba has been prevousy dened. In the
present case, the extradton court may contnue hearng evdence on the
appcaton for ba, whch may be granted n accordance wth the
gudenes n ths Decson.
6r3ef Refutat3on of /3ssents
The proposa to remand ths case to the extradton court, we beeve,
s totay unnecessary; n fact, t s a cop-out. The partes -- n partcuar,
Respondent |menez -- have been gven more than sumcent opportunty
both by the tra court and ths Court to dscuss fuy and exhaustvey
prvate respondents cam to ba. As aready stated, the RTC set for
hearng not ony pettoners appcaton for an arrest warrant, but aso
prvate respondents prayer for temporary berty. Thereafter requred by
the RTC were memoranda on the arrest, then poston papers on the
appcaton for ba, both of whch were separatey ed by the partes.
Ths Court has metcuousy pored over the Petton, the Comment, the
Repy, the engthy Memoranda and the Poston Papers of both
partes. Addtonay, t has patenty heard them n Ora Arguments, a
procedure not normay observed n the great ma|orty of cases n ths
Trbuna. Moreover, after the Memos had been submtted, the partes --
partcuary the potenta extradtee -- have bombarded ths Court wth
addtona peadngs -- entted "Manfestatons" by both partes and
"Counter-Manfestaton" by prvate respondent -- n whch the man topc
was Mr. |menezs pea for ba.
A remand woud mean that ths ong, tedous process woud be
repeated n ts entrety. The tra court woud agan hear factua and
evdentary matters. Be t noted, however, that, n a hs voumnous
peadngs and verba propostons, prvate respondent has not asked for a
remand. Evdenty, even he reazes that there s absoutey no need to
rehear factua matters. Indeed, the nadequacy es not n
the factual presentaton of Mr. |menez. Rather, t es n
hs legal arguments. Remandng the case w not sove ths utter ack of
persuason and strength n hs ega reasonng.
In short, ths Court -- as shown by ths Decson and the sprted
Concurrng, Separate and Dssentng Opnons wrtten by the earned
|ustces themseves -- has exhaustvey deberated and carefuy passed
upon all reevant questons n ths case. Thus, a remand w not serve any
usefu purpose; t w ony further deay these aready very deayed
proceedngs,
|74|
whch our Extradton Law requres to be summary n
character. What we need now s prudent and deberate speed, not
unnecessary and convouted deay. What s needed s a rm decson on
the merts, not a crcutous cop-out.
Then, there s aso the suggeston that ths Court s aegedy
"dsregardng basc freedoms when a case s one of extradton." We
beeve that ths charge s not ony baseess, but aso unfar. Sumce t to
say that, n ts ength and breath, ths Decson has taken speca
cognzance of the rghts to due process and fundamenta farness of
potenta extradtees.
Summat3on
As we draw to a cose, t s now tme to summarze and stress these
ten ponts:
1. The utmate purpose of extradton proceedngs s to determne
whether the request expressed n the petton, supported by ts annexes
and the evdence that may be adduced durng the hearng of the petton,
compes wth the Extradton Treaty and Law; and whether the person
sought s extradtabe. The proceedngs are ntended merey to assst the
requestng state n brngng the accused -- or the fugtve who has egay
escaped -- back to ts terrtory, so that the crmna process may proceed
theren.
2. By enterng nto an extradton treaty, the Phppnes s deemed to
have reposed ts trust n the reabty or soundness of the ega and
|udca system of ts treaty partner, as we as n the abty and the
wngness of the atter to grant basc rghts to the accused n the pendng
crmna case theren.
3. By nature then, extradton proceedngs are not equvaent to a
crmna case n whch gut or nnocence s determned. Consequenty, an
extradton case s not one n whch the consttutona rghts of the accused
are necessary avaabe. It s more akn, f at a, to a courts request to
poce authortes for the arrest of the accused who s at arge or has
escaped detenton or |umped ba. Havng once escaped the |ursdcton of
the requestng state, the reasonabe prma face presumpton s that the
person woud escape agan f gven the opportunty.
4. Immedatey upon recept of the petton for extradton and ts
supportng documents, the |udge sha make a prma face ndng whether
the petton s sumcent n form and substance, whether t compes wth
the Extradton Treaty and Law, and whether the person sought s
extradtabe. The magstrate has dscreton to requre the pettoner to
submt further documentaton, or to personay examne the amants or
wtnesses. If convnced that a prma face case exsts, the |udge
mmedatey ssues a warrant for the arrest of the potenta extradtee and
summons hm or her to answer and to appear at schedued hearngs on the
petton.
5. After beng taken nto custody, potenta extradtees may appy for
ba. Snce the appcants have a hstory of abscondng, they have the
burden of showng that (a) there s no ght rsk and no danger to the
communty; and (b) there exst speca, humantaran or compeng
crcumstances. The grounds used by the hghest court n the requestng
state for the grant of ba theren may be consdered, under the prncpe of
recprocty as a speca crcumstance. In extradton cases, ba s not a
matter of rght; t s sub|ect to |udca dscreton n the context of the
pecuar facts of each case.
6. Potenta extradtees are entted to the rghts to due process and to
fundamenta farness. Due process does not aways ca for
a prior opportunty to be heard. A subsequent opportunty s sumcent due
to the ght rsk nvoved. Indeed, avaabe durng the hearngs on the
petton and the answer s the fu chance to be heard and to en|oy
fundamenta farness that s compatible with the summary nature of
extradton.
7. Ths Court w aways reman a protector of human rghts, a
baston of berty, a buwark of democracy and the conscence of
socety. But t s aso we aware of the mtatons of ts authorty and of
the need for respect for the prerogatves of the other co-equa and co-
ndependent organs of government.
8. We reaze that extradton s essentay an executve, not a |udca,
responsbty arsng out of the presdenta power to conduct foregn
reatons and to mpement treates. Thus, the Executve Department of
government has broad dscreton n ts duty and power of mpementaton.
9. On the other hand, courts merey perform oversght functons and
exercse revew authorty to prevent or excse grave abuse and
tyranny. They shoud not aow contortons, deays and "over-due process"
every tte step of the way, est these summary extradton proceedngs
become not ony nute but aso sources of nternatona embarrassment
due to our nabty to compy n good fath wth a treaty partners smpe
request to return a fugtve. Worse, our country shoud not be converted
nto a dubous haven where fugtves and escapees can unreasonaby
deay, mummfy, mock, frustrate, checkmate and defeat the quest for
batera |ustce and nternatona cooperaton.
10. At bottom, e<tra&3t3on pro!ee&3ngs s2ou%& be !on&u!te&
A3t2 a%% &e%3berate spee& to &eterm3ne !omp%3an!e A3t2 t2e
,<tra&3t3on .reat1 an& 5aA7 an&, A23%e safeguar&3ng bas3!
3n&3v3&ua% r3g2ts, to avo3& t2e
%ega%3st3! !ontort3ons, &e%a1s an& te!2n3!a%3t3es t2at ma1 nega
te t2at purpose.
?$,R,*R,, the Petton s /R-6#".. The assaed RTC Order dated
May 23, 2001 s hereby decared 6, and 894., whe the chaenged
Order dated |uy 3, 2001 s S"# -S4." nsofar as t granted ba to
Respondent Mark |menez. The ba bond posted by prvate respondent
s C-6C"".. The Regona Tra Court of Mana s drected to conduct the
extradton proceedngs before t, wth a deberate speed pursuant to the
sprt and the etter of our Extradton Treaty wth the Unted States as we
as our Extradton Law. No costs.
S* *R/,R,/.
-ustria3)artine$! Corona! and Carpio3)orales! JJ.! concur.
.avide! Jr.! C.J.! )endo$a! and Calle1o! Sr.! |ons n the concurrng
opnon of |ustce Carpo.
&ellosillo! J.! see Separate Opnon.
Puno! J.! see Separate Opnon.
8itug! J.! see Dssentng Opnon.
:uisumbing! J.! concur n the separate opnon of |ustce Puno.
;nares3Santiago! J.! see Dssentng Opnon.
Sandoval3/utierre$! J.! |on n the Separate Opnon of |ustce Ynares-
Santago.
Carpio! J.! see concurrng Opnon.
|1|
Rollo, p. 74.
|2|
4d., pp. 122-125.
|3|
Presded by |udge Guermo G. Purganan.
|4|
Order dated |uy 3, 2001, p. 4; Rollo, p. 125.
|5|
322 SCRA 160, |anuary 18, 2000; and 343 SCRA 377, October 17, 2000.
|6|
Sgned on November 13, 1994, and concurred n by the Phppne
Senate on November 29, 1995.
|7|
In Cv Case No. 99-94684.
|8|
The 40-page Decson (322 SCRA 160, |anuary 18, 2000) was penned by
|ustce |ose A. R. Meo wth the concurrence of |ustces |osue N. Beoso,
|ose C. Vtug, Santago M. Kapunan, Leonardo A. Ousumbng, Fde P.
Pursma, Arturo B. Buena, Consueo Ynares-Santago and Sabno R. de
Leon |r. Dssentng were Chef |ustce Haro Davde |r.; and |ustces
Reynato S. Puno, Vcente 8. Mendoza, Artemo 8. Panganban, Bernardo P.
Pardo and Mnerva P. Reyes, wth |ustces Puno and Panganban wrtng
separate Dssents.
|9|
Penned by |ustce Puno and concurred n by Chef |ustce Davde; and
|ustces Mendoza, Panganban, Ousumbng, Pursma, Pardo, Reyes and De
Leon |r. Dssentng were |ustces Beoso, Meo, Vtug, Kapunan, Buena
and Santago, wth |ustces Meo and Santago wrtng separate Dssents
(343 SCRA 377, October 17, 2000).
|10|
Annex E of the Petton.
|11|
Annex M of the Petton.
|12|
Annex O (certed true xerox copy) of the Petton.
|13|
The case was deemed submtted for resouton on |uy 3, 2002, upon
recept by ths Court of respondents Counter-Manfestaton. Earer, on
September 3, 2001, ths Court receved pettoners Memorandum sgned
by Undersecretary Ma. Mercedtas N. Guterrez and State Counse Caro B.
Fores. Fed on August 23, 2001 was prvate respondents Memorandum
sgned by Attys. Maro Luza Bautsta, Nck Emmanue C. Vauz and
Brgette M. da Costa of Pobador Bautsta and Reyes.
|14|
Petton, pp. 9-10; Rollo, pp. 10-11.
|15|
Durng the Ora Argument on August 14, 2001, the Court asked the
partes to dscuss three ssues: 1) the proprety of the ng of the Petton
n ths case before ths Court; 2) whether Mr. Mark |menez s entted to
notce and hearng before the ssuance of a warrant for hs arrest; and
3) whether the procedure foowed by respondent |udge n ssung the
warrant of arrest and grantng ba was correct.
|16|
Petton, p. 3; Rollo, p. 4.
|17|
/overnment of the ,nited States of -merica! represented by the
Philippine .epartment of Justice v. #he Regional #rial Court of )anila!
&ranch <(! and 6elson )arque$! CA-GR SP No. 61079, promugated on May
7, 2001.
|18|
Petton, pp. 3-4; Rollo, pp. 4-5.
|19|
Phil. -ir ines "mployees -ssociation v. Phil. -ir ines! 4nc.! 111 SCRA
215, 219, |anuary 30, 1982; ctng Central &an= v. Cloribel, 44 SCRA 307
Apr 11, 1972.
|20|
Progressive .evelopment Corporation! 4nc. v. Court of -ppeals! 301
SCRA 637, |anuary 22, 1999.
|21|
)alon$o v. >amora! GR No. 137718, |uy 27, 1999, ctng cases.
|22|
289 SCRA 624, Apr 24, 1998, per Martnez, J.
|23|
190 SCRA 31, 38, September 24, 1990, per Fernan, CJ.
|24|
Philippine 6ational &an= v. Sayo |r, 292 SCRA 202, 232, |uy 9, 1999, per
Davde, CJ, ctng People v. Cuaresma, 172 SCRA 415, Apr 18,
1999; .efensor3Santiago v. 8asque$, 217 SCRA 633, |anuary 27,
1993; )analo v. /loria, 236 SCRA 130, September 1, 1994. See aso Cru$
v. Secretary of "nvironment and 6atural Resources, 347 SCRA 128,
December 6, 2000; &u=lod ng ?awaning "44& v. >amora , GR No. 142801-
802, |uy 10, 2001.
|25|
Agpao, Statutory Construction, 1995 ed., p. 37, ctng )acondray @ Co.
v. "ustaquio, 64 Ph. 446, |uy 16, 1937; Roldan v. 8illaroman, 69 Ph. 12,
October 18, 1939; #orres v. im1ap, 56 Ph. 141, September 21,
1931; )anila odge 6o. (A' v. Court of -ppeals, 73 SCRA 162, September
30, 1976; People v. Concepcion, 44 Ph. 126, November 29, 1922; #anada
v. Cuenco, 103 Ph. 1051, February 28, 1957; Salaysay v. Castro! 98 Ph.
364, |anuary 31, 1956.
|26|
Last "Whereas" cause of PD 1069.
|27|
See BWhereas" cause of PD 1069 and preambe of the RP-US
Extradton Treaty.
|28|
Bassoun, 4nternational "xtradition, 1987 ed., p.68.
|29|
In Rodrigue$ v. Comelec (259 SCRA 296, |uy 24, 1996), the Court
dened fugitive from 1ustice as one who ees after convcton to avod
punshment or who, after beng charged, ees to avod prosecuton.
|30|
Bassoun, supra! p. 21.
|31|
4d., p. 67.
|32|
Shearer, "xtradition in 4nternational aw, 1971 ed., pp. 19-20.
|33|
Supra! p. 392, October 17, 2000, per Puno, J.
|34|
Coqua, "On Impementaton of the US-RP Extradton Treaty," #he
awyers Review, August 31, 2000, p. 4.
|35|
See Bassoun, supra! p. 546; ctng 221 U.S. 508, 512 (1910).
|36|
Supra.
|37|
Secretary of Justice v. antion, supra.
|38|
Shearer, "xtradition in 4nternational aw, 1971 ed., p. 157.
|39|
4d., p. 545.
|40|
In ne wth the Phppne pocy of cooperaton and amty wth a
natons set forth n Artce II, Secton 2, Consttuton.
|41|
The Unted States Dstrct Court, Dstrct of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada:
"In the Matter of the Extradton of Chare Atong Ang, a fugtve from the
country of the Phppnes," |the court| has dened Mr. Angs moton for ba,
per pettoners Manfestaton dated |une 5, 2002.
|42|
Secretary of Justice v. antion, supra.
|43|
7right v. %en=el, 190 U.S. 40, 62, March 23, 1903.
|44|
See footnote no. 41, Petton for Certorar, p. 18; Rollo p. 19;
Manfestaton dated |une 5, 2002.
|45|
Persy, "Internatona Extradton and the Rght to Ba," 34 Stan. |. Int
L. 407 (Summer, 1998).
|46|
4bid.
|47|
39 C|S 875, ctng People v. &lair, 33 NYS 2d 183, 190, 191; -merada
Petroleum Corporation v. %ester, 109 P. 2d 820, 821, 188 Ok. 394.
|48|
4d.; ctng 4ndependent ife 4ns. Co. v. Rodgers, 55 S.W. 2d 767, 165
Tenn. 447.
|49|
Petton for Extradton, pp. 2-3; Rollo pp. 49-50.
|50|
Order dated |uy 3, 2001, p. 3; Rollo, 124.
|51|
In the questoned |uy 3, 2001 Order (p. 4; Rollo, p. 125), respondent
|udge admtted that the Annexes of the Petton for Extradton had been
receved by the court a quo on May 25, 2001; yet, n ts Order dated May
23, 2001 (Rollo, p. 74), t aready set for hearng the ssuance of the
warrant of arrest.
|52|
See 9, PD 1069.
|53|
Bassoun, 4nternational "xtradition! supra, p. 87; ctng 1 L.
Oppenhem, 4nternational aw! (8
th
ed., 1955), pp. 952-53.
|54|
280 SCRA 365, October 9, 1997.
|55|
4d., p. 381, per Panganban, J.
|56|
247 SCRA 652, 680, per Puno, J.
|57|
Ib4d.; ctng -llado v. .io=no, 233 SCRA 192, May 5, 1994.
|58|
Prima facie fnding, not probabe cause, s the more precse termnoogy
because an extradton case s not a crmna proceedng n whch the atter
phrase s commony used.
|59|
"SEC. 4. &ail! a matter of right5 exception. C A persons n custody sha
be admtted to ba as a matter of rght, wth sumcent suretes, or reeased
on recognzance as prescrbed by aw or ths Rue (a) before or after
convcton by the Metropotan Tra Court, Muncpa Tra Court, Muncpa
Tra Court n Ctes, or Muncpa Crcut Tra Court, and (b) before
convcton by the Regona Tra Court of an ohense not punshabe by
death, reclusion perpetua! or fe mprsonment."
|60|
.e la Camara v. "nage, 41 SCRA 1, 6, September 17, 1971, per
Fernando, J. (ater CJ).
|61|
18, Art. VII, Consttuton.
|62|
Paretti v. ,nited States of -merica, 122 F. 3d. 758, May 6, 1997.
|63|
/arcia v. 6RC, GR No. 110494, November 18, 1996; Paat v. Court of
-ppeals, |anuary 10, 1997.
|64|
See Central &an= of the Philippines v. Court of -ppeals, 220 SCRA 536,
March 20, 1993.
|65|
4bid. See aso &usuego v. Court of -ppeals, 304 SCRA 473, March 11,
1999.
|66|
Coqua, "On the Impementaton of the US-RP Extradton Treaty," supra;
ctng ?elso v. ,S .epartment of State, 13 F Supp. 291 |DDC 1998|.
|67|
It states: "If the person sought consents n wrtng to surrender to the
Requestng State, the Requested State may surrender the person as
expedtousy as possbe wthout further proceedngs."
|68|
1, Art. VIII, Consttuton.
|69|
5, Art. VIII, Consttuton.
|70|
I.A. Cruz, Constitutional aw, 1998 ed., p. 98.
|71|
Prvate respondent argues that the foowng cases -- 4n re )ichell, 171
F. Rep. 289, |une 30, 1909; ,nited States v. ?irby! &rennan and -rtt, 106 F.
3d. 855, February 27, 1997 and 158 F. 3d. 462, October 9, 1998. &eaulieu
v. %artigan, 460 F. Supp. 915, March 14, 1977; and 554 F. 2d 1, Apr 6,
1977 -- shoud be treated as exampes of speca crcumstances. In our
vew, however, they are not appcabe to ths case due to factua
dherences. Hence we refran from rung on ths argument of |menez.
|72|
324 SCRA 689, February 3, 2000, per Ynares-Santago, J.
|73|
4d., pp. 700-702.
|74|
The US request for extradton was dated |une 16, 1999; and yet, to
date, more than three years ater, the Petton for Extradton s st
angushng n the tra court.