Scribd
Upload
15 views2 pages

Digest 4

Uploaded by

Mark David Dacula
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
15 views2 pages

Digest 4

Uploaded by

Mark David Dacula
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

GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

represented by the Philippine Department of Justice v.


HON. GUILLERMO PURGANAN, Presiding Judge Regional
Trial Court of Manila and MARC JIMENEZ a.k.a. MARCIO
BATACAN CRESPO
G.R. No. 148571
September 24, 2002

FACTS: The Government of the USA requested to the Philippine


Government for the extradition of Mark B. Jimenez pursuant
to their existing RP-US Extradition Treaty. Documents
pertaining to the request were then transmitted by the
secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) to the secretary of justice
(SOJ) for appropriate action in accordance with Section 5 PD
No. 1069, also known as the Extradition Law. RTC Manila
granted Jimenez a TRO which prohibits the DOJ from filing a
petition for his extradition.

The validity of the said TRO was assailed by the SOJ through
a petition but was dismissed by the Court and ordered the
SOJ to furnish Jimenez copies of the extradition request and
its supporting papers and to grant the latter a reasonable
period within which to file a comment and supporting
evidence. With this, the SOJ filed a Motion for
Reconsideration which reversed the earlier decision and
bereft Jimenez of his right to notice and hearing during the
evaluation stage of the extradition process. Thereafter, the
Government of the USA, represented by the DOJ filed with
the RTC Petition for Extradition which alleged that Jimenez
was the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the US District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The Petition prayed for the immediate arrest of Jimenez in


order to prevent his flight. Jimenez filed an Urgent
Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion which prayed that petitioner’s
application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. The RTC
granted his Motion which was questioned by the petitioner
because the trial court allowed Jimenez to be heard prior to
the issuance of a warrant of arrest. After the hearing, the
Court issued a warrant of arrest and allowed Jimenez to post
bail for his provisional liberty.

ISSUES: Whether or not Petitioner is entitled to bail and to provisional


liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending

S.C. NO. There is no provision in the Philippine Constitution


DECISION granting the right to bail to a person who is the subject of an
extradition request and arrest warrant. As suggested by the
use of the word "conviction," the constitutional provision on
bail as well as Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court,
applies only when a person has been arrested and detained
for violation of Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply to
extradition proceedings, because extradition courts do not
render judgments of conviction or acquittal.

Moreover, 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. Offenses
for which Jimenez is sought to be extradited are bailable in
the United States is not an argument to grant him one in the
present case. To stress, extradition proceedings are separate
and distinct from the trial for the offenses for which he is
charged. He should apply for bail before the courts trying the
criminal cases against him, not before the extradition court.

With this, the bail bond posted by private respondent is


cancelled and RTC Manila is directed to conduct the
extradition proceedings before it, with all deliberate speed
pursuant to the spirit and the letter of the Extradition Treaty
with the United States as well as the Philippine Extradition
Law.

You might also like