Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 205 views

    (Case No. 127) : Prepared By: Cecille Diane DJ. Mangaser

    Uploaded by

    Cecille Mangaser
    This case involves the extradition of Mark B. Jimenez from the Philippines to the United States to face criminal charges. The US government filed a petition for extradition with the regional trial court. Jimenez argued he was entitled to notice, a hearing before his arrest, and bail. The Supreme Court held that: 1) Under the extradition law, Jimenez was not entitled to notice or a hearing before his arrest, as the law requires an "immediate" arrest to prevent flight. 2) Jimenez was also not entitled to bail, as the constitutional bail provision does not apply to extradition proceedings which do not result in conviction or acquittal. Extradition courts determine temporary liberty or arrest pending

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    (Case No. 127) : Prepared By: Cecille Diane DJ. Mangaser

    Uploaded by

    Cecille Mangaser
    205 views2 pages
    This case involves the extradition of Mark B. Jimenez from the Philippines to the United States to face criminal charges. The US government filed a petition for extradition with the regional trial court. Jimenez argued he was entitled to notice, a hearing before his arrest, and bail. The Supreme Court held that: 1) Under the extradition law, Jimenez was not entitled to notice or a hearing before his arrest, as the law requires an "immediate" arrest to prevent flight. 2) Jimenez was also not entitled to bail, as the constitutional bail provision does not apply to extradition proceedings which do not result in conviction or acquittal. Extradition courts determine temporary liberty or arrest pending

    Original Description:

    Constitutional Law 2 Case Digest

    Original Title

    USA v Purganan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves the extradition of Mark B. Jimenez from the Philippines to the United States to face criminal charges. The US government filed a petition for extradition with the regional trial court. Jimenez argued he was entitled to notice, a hearing before his arrest, and bail. The Supreme Court held that: 1) Under the extradition law, Jimenez was not entitled to notice or a hearing before his arrest, as the law requires an "immediate" arrest to prevent flight. 2) Jimenez was also not entitled to bail, as the constitutional bail provision does not apply to extradition proceedings which do not result in conviction or acquittal. Extradition courts determine temporary liberty or arrest pending

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    205 views2 pages

    (Case No. 127) : Prepared By: Cecille Diane DJ. Mangaser

    Uploaded by

    Cecille Mangaser
    This case involves the extradition of Mark B. Jimenez from the Philippines to the United States to face criminal charges. The US government filed a petition for extradition with the regional trial court. Jimenez argued he was entitled to notice, a hearing before his arrest, and bail. The Supreme Court held that: 1) Under the extradition law, Jimenez was not entitled to notice or a hearing before his arrest, as the law requires an "immediate" arrest to prevent flight. 2) Jimenez was also not entitled to bail, as the constitutional bail provision does not apply to extradition proceedings which do not result in conviction or acquittal. Extradition courts determine temporary liberty or arrest pending

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    (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

    You might also like