Government of the U.S.A. v. Purganan, G.R.

No. 148571, Sept. 25, 2002

Topic: Right to bail
Ponente: N/A
Facts:
**Guys Resolution yung case eh so
parang nag explain lang yung court*

The private respondent insists that

the Extradition Court acted properly
in granting bail to him which the
court doesnt agree because
petitioner's repeated invocation of
the Extradition Court's grant of bail
has not convinced us that he deserves
bail under the exception laid down in
our Decision, namely, (1) that, once
granted bail, the applicant will not
be a right risk or a danger to the
community; and (2) that there
exists special, humanitarian and
compelling circumstances
including, as matter of reciprocity,
those cited by the highest court in
the requesting state when it grants
provisional liberty in extradition
cases therein." The court did not
found any reason that the respondent
was able to meet the execeptons.
Second,privaterespondentclaims
thatourDecisiondidnotmakean
expressfindingofgraveabuseof
discretiononthepartofthelower
courtwhichisincorrectbecause
theydidnotfindanyprimafacie;
respondentjudgegravelyabusedhis
discretionwhenhesetthematterfor
hearinguponmotionofJimenez
Further,contrarytoJimenez'sclaims,
theExtraditionCourtdidnotnegate
theriskposedbyhim.Itdidnot
makeafindingonhighriskasit
consideredtheissueirrelevant,

havingalreadydeterminedbailtobe
amatterofright.Withoutmaking
anyfindingonhighrisk,itfoundthe
capacitytosubservientto"the
benefitsthatrespondentmaybeable
todelivertohisconstituents"despite
theabsencefromtherecordsof
evidenceshowingtheexistenceof
suchbenefits
Third,privaterespondent's
arguments(1)thattheExtradition
Courtexercisedduediscretioninits
grantofbailand(2)thatour"ruling
thatbailisnotamatterofrightin
extraditioncasesiscontraryto
prevailinglawandjurisprudence"are
neithernovelnordeservingoffurther
rebuttal.
Fourth,privaterespondentargues
thatallegedlyourDecisionviolates
hisdueprocessrights.Again,we
havediscussedthismatterinour
Decisionsayingthat,initssimplest
concept,dueprocessismerelythe
opportunitytobeheardwhich
opportunityneednotalwaysbea
priorone.Inpointoffact,private
respondenthasbeengivenmorethan
enoughopportunitytobeheardin
thisCourtaswellasinthe
ExtraditionCourt.
Finally,privaterespondentcontends
thatasamemberofCongress,heis
immunefromarrest"arisingfrom
offensespunishablebynotmorethan
six(6)yearsimprisonment,"saying
thathecannotbepreventedfrom
performinghislegislativeduties
becausehisconstituentswouldbe
disenfranchised.
thatrespondent'selectiontothe
positionofcongressman,withthe
concomitantdutytodischarge
legislativefunctions,doesnot

constituteasubstantial
differentiationwhichwarrants
placinghiminaclassificationor
categoryapartfromallotherpersons
confinedanddeprivedoftheir
libertypendingresolutionoftheir
extraditioncases.Wereiteratethat
lawfularrestandtemporary
confinementofapotentialextradite
aregermanetothepurposesofthe
lawandapplytoallthosebelonging
tothesameclass.
Issue:W/Ntheprivaterespondenthasthe
righttobail?
Held:No,Aswehavestated,theprocedure
adoptedbytheExtraditionCourtof
notifyingandhearingaprospective
extraditeebeforetheactualissuanceofthe
warrantforhisarrest,istantamountto
givingnoticetoandavoidextradition.
Whetheracandidateforextraditiondoesin
factgointohidingornotisbesidethepoint.
Intheanalysis,themethodadoptedbythe
lowercourtwascompletelyatloggerheads
withthepurpose,objectandrationaleofthe
law,andoverlookedtheevilstobe
remedied.Asalreadysuggestedinour
Decision(p.32),privaterespondentcan
avoidarrestanddetentionwhicharethe
consequencesoftheextraditionproceeding
simplybyapplyingforbailbeforethecourts
tryingthecriminalcasesagainsthiminthe
USA.Hehimselfhasrepeatedlytoldusthat
theindictmentsagainsthimintheUnited
Statesarebailable.Furthermore,heis
capable,financiallyandotherwise,of
producingthenecessarybailintheUS.Why
thenhashenotdoneso?
Otherwisestated,RespondentJimenezhas
theactualpowertolifthisarrestand
detentionarisingfromhisextraditionby
simplyandvoluntarilygoingtoandfiling

bailintheUSA.
WHEREFORE,theMotionfor
ReconsiderationisherebyDENIEDwith
finality.
SeparateOpinionofVitug
The1987PhilippineConstitutionhasits
ownstandardsforthegrantofbail
Nocountryisunderanylegalobligationto
adopt,orblindlybeinconformitywith,
proceduresfromotherjurisdictions.The
proposedsolutionofdevelopinga"special
circumstancesstandard"indetermining
whetherbailshouldbegrantedornot,
followingwhatcouldbeconsideredtobe
mereprohacvicepronouncementsofsome
foreigncourts,mightnotbeapropos.Indeed,
settingupthesocalled"special
circumstancesstandard"wouldbetoignore
ourownconstitutionalmandateonbail.
Section13,ArticleIII,ofthe1987
Constitutionclearlysetstheparametersfor
thejudicialexerciseofthegrantofbail
"Allpersons,exceptthosechargedwith
offensespunishablebyreclusionperpetua,
whenevidenceofguiltisstrong,shall,
beforeconviction,bebailablebysufficient
sureties,orbereleasedonrecognizanceas
maybeprovidedbylaw.Therighttobail
shallnotbeimpairedevenwhenthe
privilegeofthewritofhabeascorpusis
suspended.Excessivebailshallnotbe
required."
Startingwiththedeclarationthattherightto
bailisavailabletoallpersons,the
Constitutionproceedstodoneitsexceptions
andqualifications1)whenacriminal
offenseisacapitaloneandtheevidenceof
guiltisstrong,and2)whengrantedthebail

shallnotbeexcessive.Thecircumstanceof
"highriskoffightuponwhichthemain
decisionanchorsitsrefusaltograntbailis
conspicuouslyabsentfromtherecital.The
EighthAmendmentoftheUSFederal
Constitution,unlikethePhilippine
Constitutiondoesnotcategoricallyprovide
forbailasamatterofright.Thus,wrestling

withthecompatibilityofthegrantofbailin
extraditionproceedingswithbasic
constitutionalguarantees,whichUSjudges
havebeenfacedwith,shouldnotbeour
dilemma.TaCEHA