Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 298 views

    Government of USA Vs Purganan Digest

    Uploaded by

    Marcos Hernandez
    This case involves an extradition petition filed by the Government of the USA against Jimenez. The issues are whether Jimenez is entitled to notice and a hearing before an arrest warrant can be issued, and whether he is entitled to bail during the extradition proceedings. The court held that under the constitution, probable cause for an arrest warrant only requires examination of complainants and witnesses, and does not require notifying or hearing the accused. The court also held that extradition cases are different from criminal cases, so the presumption of innocence and right to bail do not apply. As long as Jimenez is given a chance to be heard during the extradition hearing, his right to due process is not violated by his detention before the case

    Copyright:

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

    Government of USA Vs Purganan Digest

    Uploaded by

    Marcos Hernandez
    298 views1 page
    This case involves an extradition petition filed by the Government of the USA against Jimenez. The issues are whether Jimenez is entitled to notice and a hearing before an arrest warrant can be issued, and whether he is entitled to bail during the extradition proceedings. The court held that under the constitution, probable cause for an arrest warrant only requires examination of complainants and witnesses, and does not require notifying or hearing the accused. The court also held that extradition cases are different from criminal cases, so the presumption of innocence and right to bail do not apply. As long as Jimenez is given a chance to be heard during the extradition hearing, his right to due process is not violated by his detention before the case

    Original Description:

    US vs Purganan

    Original Title

    Government of USA vs Purganan Digest

    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 an extradition petition filed by the Government of the USA against Jimenez. The issues are whether Jimenez is entitled to notice and a hearing before an arrest warrant can be issued, and whether he is entitled to bail during the extradition proceedings. The court held that under the constitution, probable cause for an arrest warrant only requires examination of complainants and witnesses, and does not require notifying or hearing the accused. The court also held that extradition cases are different from criminal cases, so the presumption of innocence and right to bail do not apply. As long as Jimenez is given a chance to be heard during the extradition hearing, his right to due process is not violated by his detention before the case

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    298 views1 page

    Government of USA Vs Purganan Digest

    Uploaded by

    Marcos Hernandez
    This case involves an extradition petition filed by the Government of the USA against Jimenez. The issues are whether Jimenez is entitled to notice and a hearing before an arrest warrant can be issued, and whether he is entitled to bail during the extradition proceedings. The court held that under the constitution, probable cause for an arrest warrant only requires examination of complainants and witnesses, and does not require notifying or hearing the accused. The court also held that extradition cases are different from criminal cases, so the presumption of innocence and right to bail do not apply. As long as Jimenez is given a chance to be heard during the extradition hearing, his right to due process is not violated by his detention before the case

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Government of USA vs Purganan

    APRIL 9, 2014
    Government of USA vs Purganan
    G.R. No. 148571. September 24, 2002

    Held:

    The alternative prayer of Jimenez was also set for hearing on 15 June 2001.
    Thereafter, the court below issued its 3 July 2001 Order, directing the issuance of
    warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at P1 million in cash.
    After he had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond, Jimenez
    was granted provisional liberty via the challenged Order dated 4 July 2001. Hence,
    this petition.

    1.
    No.
    To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants, the Constitution
    itself requires only the examination under oath or affirmation
    of complainants and the witnesses they may produce. There is no requirement to
    notify and hear the accused before the issuance of warrants of arrest.
    At most, in cases of clear insufficiency of evidence on record, judges merely further
    examine complainants and their witnesses. In the present case, validating the act of
    respondent judge and instituting the practice of hearing the accused and his
    witnesses at this early stage would be discordant with the rationale for the entire
    system. If the accused were allowed to be heard and necessarily to present evidence
    during the prima facie determination for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, what
    would stop him from presenting his entire plethora of defenses at this stage if he
    so desires in his effort to negate a prima facie finding? Such a procedure could
    convert the determination of a prima facie case into a full-blown trial of the entire
    proceedings and possibly make trial of the main case superfluous. This scenario is
    also anathema to the summary nature of extraditions.
    ***Upon receipt of a petition for extradition and its supporting documents, the judge
    must study them and make, as soon as possible, a prima facie finding whether (a)
    they are sufficient in form and substance, (b) they show compliance with the
    Extradition Treaty and Law, and (c) the person sought is extraditable. At his
    discretion, the judge may require the submission of further documentation or may
    personally examine the affiants and witnesses of the petitioner. If, in spite of this
    study and examination, no prima facie finding is possible, the petition may be
    dismissed at the discretion of the judge.
    On the other hand, if the presence of a prima facie case is determined, then the
    magistrate must immediately issue a warrant for the arrest of the extraditee, who is
    at the same time summoned to answer the petition and to appear at scheduled
    summary hearings. Prior to the issuance of the warrant, the judge must not inform or
    notify the potential extraditee of the pendency of the petition, lest the latter be given
    the opportunity to escape and frustrate the proceedings. In our opinion, the
    foregoing procedure will best serve the ends of justice in extradition cases.***
    2.
    No.
    Extradition cases are different from ordinary criminal proceedings. The constitutional
    right to bail flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who
    should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to
    acquittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt.It follows that the
    constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a case like extradition, where the
    presumption of innocence is not at issue.

    Issues: 1.Whether Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant for his
    arrest can be issued
    2.
    Whether he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the
    extradition proceedings are pending

    Respondent Jimenez cites the foreign case Parettiin arguing that, constitutionally,
    [n]o one shall be deprived of x x x liberty x x x without due process of law.
    Contrary to his contention, his detention prior to the conclusion of the extradition
    proceedings does not amount to a violation of his right to due process. We iterate the

    Facts:This Petition is really a sequel to GR No. 139465 entitled Secretary of Justice


    v. Ralph C. Lantion where the court held that Jimenez was bereft of the right to
    notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process.
    Finding no more legal obstacle, the Government of the United States of America,
    represented by the Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC on 18 May 2001, the appropriate
    Petition for Extradition which was docketed as Extradition Case 01192061. The
    Petition alleged, inter alia, that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest warrant issued
    by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on 15 April
    1999.

    Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Jimenez filed before it an Urgent
    Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion, which prayed that Jimenezs application for an arrest
    warrant be set for hearing. In its 23 May 2001 Order, the RTC granted the Motion of
    Jimenez and set the case for hearing on 5 June 2001. In that hearing, Jimenez
    manifested its reservations on the procedure adopted by the trial court allowing the
    accused in an extradition case to be heard prior to the issuance of a warrant of
    arrest.

    After the hearing, the court a quo required the parties to submit their respective
    memoranda. In his Memorandum, Jimenez sought an alternative prayer: that in case
    a warrant should issue, he be allowed to post bail in the amount of P100,000.

    familiar doctrine that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard but,
    at the same time, point out that the doctrine does not always call for
    a prior opportunity to be heard. Where the circumstances such as those present in
    an extradition case call for it, a subsequent opportunity to be heard is enough. In
    the present case, respondent will be given full opportunity to be heard subsequently,
    when the extradition court hears the Petition for Extradition. Hence, there is no
    violation of his right to due process and fundamental fairness.

    You might also like