Gov’t of Hong Kong vs. Olalia, G.R. No.

153675, April 19, 2007

This case discusses whether the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of Rights extends to a
prospective extradite in an extradition1 proceeding.

On January 30, 1995, the Republic of the Philippines and the then British Crown Colony of Hong Kong
signed an "Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons." It took effect on June 20,
1997.

The Petitioner is the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, represented by
the Philippine Department of Justice

The Respondents are Judge Felix Olalia and Juan Antonio Muñoz

Facts: Private respondent Muñoz was charged before the Hong Kong Court with three (3)
counts of the offense of "accepting an advantage as agent," in violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of the
Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201 of Hong Kong. He also faces seven (7) counts of the offense
of conspiracy to defraud, penalized by the common law of Hong Kong. Warrants of arrest were
issued against him. If convicted, he faces a jail term of seven (7) to fourteen (14) years for each
charge.

On September 13, 1999, the DOJ received from the Hong Kong Department of Justice a request for
the provisional arrest of private respondent. The RTC, Branch 19, Manila issued an Order of
Arrest against private respondent. That same day, the NBI agents arrested and detained him.

Private respondent filed a petition for bail which was opposed by petitioner. After hearing, Judge
Bernardo, Jr. issued an Order denying the petition for bail, holding that there is no Philippine law
granting bail in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high "flight risk." Judge Bernardo, Jr.
inhibited himself from further hearing the case, it was then raffled off to Branch 8 presided by
respondent judge. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order denying his
application for bail and this was granted by respondent judge.

Petitioner filed an urgent motion to vacate the above Order, but it was denied by respondent judge.
Hence, the instant petition.

Issue: Whether or not respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction as there is no provision in the Constitution granting bail to a potential
extraditee.

Held: No. Bearing in mind the purpose of extradition proceedings, the premise behind the issuance
of the arrest warrant and the "temporary detention" is the possibility of flight of the potential
extraditee. This is based on the assumption that such extraditee is a fugitive from justice. Given the
foregoing, the prospective extraditee thus bears the onus probandi of showing that he or she is not a
flight risk and should be granted bail.

1
Section 2(a) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law) defines "extradition" as "the removal of an
accused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting state
or government to hold him in connection with any criminal investigation directed against him or the execution of a penalty
imposed on him under the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or government."
Ratio:

The Philippines, along with the other members of the family of nations, committed to uphold the
fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person. Clearly, the
right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of
the various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and
protection of human rights. Under these treaties, the presumption lies in favor of human liberty.
Thus, the Philippines should see to it that the right to liberty of every individual is not impaired.

Extradition is not a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the potential extraditee. Nor
is it a full-blown civil action, but one that is merely administrative in character. Its object is to
prevent the escape of a person accused or convicted of a crime and to secure his return to the
state from which he fled, for the purpose of trial or punishment. It does not necessarily mean that
in keeping with its treaty obligations, the Philippines should diminish a potential
extraditee’s rights to life, liberty, and due process. More so, where these rights are guaranteed,
not only by our Constitution, but also by international conventions, to which the Philippines is a party.
We should not, therefore, deprive an extraditee of his right to apply for bail, provided that a certain
standard for the grant is satisfactorily met.

In his Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Associate Justice Puno, proposed that a new standard which
he termed "clear and convincing evidence" should be used in granting bail in extradition
cases. According to him, this standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher
than preponderance of evidence. The potential extraditee must prove by "clear and convincing
evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the
extradition court.

In this case, there is no showing that private respondent presented evidence to show that he
is not a flight risk. Consequently, this case should be remanded to the trial court to determine
whether private respondent may be granted bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence."

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. This case is REMANDED to the trial court to determine
whether private respondent is entitled to bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence." If not,
the trial court should order the cancellation of his bail bond and his immediate detention; and
thereafter, conduct the extradition proceedings with dispatch.