Scribd
Upload
104 views2 pages

WRIGHT vs. CA

The document summarizes an extradition case between Australia and the Philippines regarding Paul Joseph Wright, an Australian citizen wanted for criminal charges in Australia. Australia requested Wright's extradition under an extradition treaty between the two countries. Wright contested the extradition on the grounds that applying the treaty retroactively would constitute an ex post facto law prohibited by the Philippine Constitution. However, the Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld the lower courts' rulings that the extradition treaty was not a penal law and its retroactive application did not violate the Constitution. Wright's petition contesting the extradition was denied.

Uploaded by

Marella Beatriz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
104 views2 pages

WRIGHT vs. CA

The document summarizes an extradition case between Australia and the Philippines regarding Paul Joseph Wright, an Australian citizen wanted for criminal charges in Australia. Australia requested Wright's extradition under an extradition treaty between the two countries. Wright contested the extradition on the grounds that applying the treaty retroactively would constitute an ex post facto law prohibited by the Philippine Constitution. However, the Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld the lower courts' rulings that the extradition treaty was not a penal law and its retroactive application did not violate the Constitution. Wright's petition contesting the extradition was denied.

Uploaded by

Marella Beatriz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

WRIGHT vs.

CA

FACTS:

On March 7, 1988, Australia and the Philippines entered into a Treaty of


Extradition which provides an agreement to extradite "persons…wanted for
prosecution of the imposition or enforcement of a sentence in the Requesting State for
an extraditable offense." The Treaty also allows a retroactive effect for crimes, provided
that these crimes were in the statute books of the requesting State at the time of their
commission.

On March 17, 1993, Assistant Secretary Sime D. Hidalgo of the Department of


Foreign Affairs indorsed to the Department of Justice Diplomatic Note No. 080/93 dated
February 19, 1993 from the Government of Australia to the Department of Justice
through Attorney General Michael Duffy seeking to indict Paul Joseph Wright, an
Australian Citizen for the indictment of the following crimes:

1. Wright/Orr Matter — one count of Obtaining Property by Deception contrary to


Section 81(1) of the Victorian Crimes Act of 1958; and

2. Wright/Cracker Matter — Thirteen (13) counts of Obtaining Properties by Deception


contrary to Section 81(1) of the Victorian Crimes Act of 1958; one count of attempting to
Obtain Property by Deception contrary to Section 321(m) of Victorian Crimes Act of
1958; and one count of Perjury contrary to Section 314 of Victorian Crimes Act of 1958.

An extradition proceedings was initiated on April 6, 1993 before the Regional


Trial Court of Makati. On June 14, 1993, the petition was granted and resulted to an
order of Wright’s deportation. The decision was sustained and Motion for
Reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals. Wright took the position under
Article 18 of the Treaty and filed a review on certiorari to set aside the order of
deportation contending that the provision of the Treaty giving retroactive effect to the
extradition treaty amounts to an ex post facto law which violates Section 21 of Article VI
of the Constitution.

ISSUE:

Whether or not such retroactive application is in violation of the Constitution for being an
ex post facto law.

RULING:

NO. Wherefore, finding no reversible error in the decision of respondent Court of


Appeals, the Supreme Court AFFIRMED the same and DENIED the instant petition for
lack of merit.

RATIO:
Article 2(4) of the Treaty unequivocally provides that:

4. Extradition may be granted pursuant to provisions of this Treaty


irrespective of when the offense in relation to which extradition is
requested was committed, provided that:

(a) it was an offense in the Requesting State at the time of the acts or
omissions constituting the offense; and

(b) the acts or omissions alleged would, if they had taken place in the
Territory of the Requested State at the time of the making of the request
for extradition, have constituted an offense against the laws in force in that
state.

The concept of ex post facto laws in our Constitution was limited only to penal
and criminal statutes which affects the substantial rights of the accused. As concluded
by the Court of Appeals, the Treaty is neither a piece of criminal legislation nor a
criminal procedural statute. "It merely provides for the extradition of persons wanted for
prosecution of an offense or a crime which offense or crime was already committed or
consummated at the time the treaty was ratified."

SOLOMON, Marella Beatriz Q.

You might also like