EN BANC documents, the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted

them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate action,

[G.R. No. 148571. September 24, 2002] pursuant to Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1069,
also known as the Extradition Law.
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
represented by the Philippine Department of Justice, Upon learning of the request for his extradition, Jimenez
petitioner, vs. Hon. GUILLERMO G. PURGANAN, Morales, and sought and was granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 42; and by the RTC of Manila, Branch 25.vii[7] The TRO prohibited the
MARK B. JIMENEZ a.k.a. MARIO BATACAN CRESPO, Department of Justice (DOJ) from filing with the RTC a petition
respondents. for his extradition. The validity of the TRO was, however,
assailed by the SOJ in a Petition before this Court in the said
DECISION GR No. 139465. Initially, the Court -- by a vote of 9-6 --
dismissed the Petition. The SOJ was ordered to furnish private
respondent copies of the extradition request and its
PANGANIBAN, J.:
supporting papers and to grant the latter a reasonable period
within which to file a comment and supporting evidence.viii[8]
In extradition proceedings, are prospective extraditees entitled
to notice and hearing before warrants for their arrest can be
Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the SOJ, this
issued? Equally important, are they entitled to the right to bail
Court issued its October 17, 2000 Resolution.ix[9] By an
and provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are
identical vote of 9-6 -- after three justices changed their votes -
pending? In general, the answer to these two novel questions
- it reconsidered and reversed its earlier Decision. It held that
is No. The explanation of and the reasons for, as well as the
private respondent was bereft of the right to notice and
exceptions to, this rule are laid out in this Decision.
hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process.
This Resolution has become final and executory.
The Case
Finding no more legal obstacle, the Government of the United
Before us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
States of America, represented by the Philippine DOJ, filed
of Court, seeking to void and set aside the Orders dated May
with the RTC on May 18, 2001, the appropriate Petition for
23, 2001i[1] and July 3, 2001ii[2] issued by the Regional Trial Extradition which was docketed as Extradition Case No.
Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 42.iii[3] The first assailed Order
01192061. The Petition alleged, inter alia, that Jimenez was
set for hearing petitioners application for the issuance of a
the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the United States
warrant for the arrest of Respondent Mark B. Jimenez.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 15,
1999. The warrant had been issued in connection with the
The second challenged Order, on the other hand, directed the following charges in Indictment No. 99-00281 CR-SEITZ: (1)
issuance of a warrant, but at the same time granted bail to conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit certain
Jimenez. The dispositive portion of the Order reads as follows: offenses in violation of Title 18 US Code Section 371; (2) tax
evasion, in violation of Title 26 US Code Section 7201; (3) wire
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the [Court] finds fraud, in violation of Title 18 US Code Sections 1343 and 2; (4)
probable cause against respondent Mark Jimenez. Accordingly false statements, in violation of Title 18 US Code Sections 1001
let a Warrant for the arrest of the respondent be issued. and 2; and (5) illegal campaign contributions, in violation of
Consequently and taking into consideration Section 9, Rule 114 Title 2 US Code Sections 441b, 441f and 437g(d) and Title 18
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, this Court fixes the US Code Section 2. In order to prevent the flight of Jimenez,
reasonable amount of bail for respondents temporary liberty the Petition prayed for the issuance of an order for his
at ONE MILLION PESOS (Php 1,000,000.00), the same to be immediate arrest pursuant to Section 6 of PD No. 1069.
paid in cash.
Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Respondent Jimenez
Furthermore respondent is directed to immediately surrender filed before it an Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion,x[10]
to this Court his passport and the Bureau of Immigration and which prayed that petitioners application for an arrest warrant
Deportation is likewise directed to include the name of the be set for hearing.
respondent in its Hold Departure List.iv[4]
In its assailed May 23, 2001 Order, the RTC granted the Motion
Essentially, the Petition prays for the lifting of the bail Order, of Jimenez and set the case for hearing on June 5, 2001. In that
the cancellation of the bond, and the taking of Jimenez into hearing, petitioner manifested its reservations on the
legal custody. procedure adopted by the trial court allowing the accused in
an extradition case to be heard prior to the issuance of a
The Facts warrant of arrest.

This Petition is really a sequel to GR No. 139465 entitled After the hearing, the court a quo required the parties to
Secretary of Justice v. Ralph C. Lantion.v[5] submit their respective memoranda. In his Memorandum,
Jimenez sought an alternative prayer: that in case a warrant
Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty,vi[6] the should issue, he be allowed to post bail in the amount of
United States Government, through diplomatic channels, sent P100,000.
to the Philippine Government Note Verbale No. 0522 dated
June 16, 1999, supplemented by Note Nos. 0597, 0720 and The alternative prayer of Jimenez was also set for hearing on
0809 and accompanied by duly authenticated documents June 15, 2001. Thereafter, the court below issued its
requesting the extradition of Mark B. Jimenez, also known as questioned July 3, 2001 Order, directing the issuance of a
Mario Batacan Crespo. Upon receipt of the Notes and warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at

1
one million pesos in cash.xi[11] After he had surrendered his extradition proceedings are pending. Preliminarily, we shall
passport and posted the required cash bond, Jimenez was take up the alleged prematurity of the Petition for Certiorari
granted provisional liberty via the challenged Order dated July arising from petitioners failure to file a Motion for
4, 2001.xii[12] Reconsideration in the RTC and to seek relief in the Court of
Appeals (CA), instead of in this Court.xv[15] We shall also
Hence, this Petition.xiii[13] preliminarily discuss five extradition postulates that will guide
us in disposing of the substantive issues.
Issues
The Courts Ruling
Petitioner presents the following issues for the consideration
of this Court: The Petition is meritorious.

I. Preliminary Matters

The public respondent acted without or in excess of Alleged Prematurity of Present Petition
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction in adopting a procedure of first Petitioner submits the following justifications for not filing a
hearing a potential extraditee before issuing an arrest warrant Motion for Reconsideration in the Extradition Court: (1) the
under Section 6 of PD No. 1069. issues were fully considered by such court after requiring the
parties to submit their respective memoranda and position
II. papers on the matter and thus, the filing of a reconsideration
motion would serve no useful purpose; (2) the assailed orders
The public respondent acted without or in excess of are a patent nullity, absent factual and legal basis therefor; and
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack (3) the need for relief is extremely urgent, as the passage of
or excess of jurisdiction in granting the prayer for bail and in sufficient time would give Jimenez ample opportunity to
allowing Jimenez to go on provisional liberty because: escape and avoid extradition; and (4) the issues raised are
purely of law.xvi[16]
1. An extradition court has no power to authorize bail, in the
absence of any law that provides for such power. For resorting directly to this Court instead of the CA, petitioner
submits the following reasons: (1) even if the petition is lodged
with the Court of Appeals and such appellate court takes
2. Section 13, Article III (right to bail clause) of the 1987
cognizance of the issues and decides them, the parties would
Philippine Constitution and Section 4, Rule 114 (Bail) of the
still bring the matter to this Honorable Court to have the issues
Rules of Court, as amended, which [were] relied upon, cannot
resolved once and for all [and] to have a binding precedent
be used as bases for allowing bail in extradition proceedings.
that all lower courts ought to follow; (2) the Honorable Court
of Appeals had in one casexvii[17] ruled on the issue by
3. The presumption is against bail in extradition proceedings or
disallowing bail but the court below refused to recognize the
proceedings leading to extradition.
decision as a judicial guide and all other courts might likewise
adopt the same attitude of refusal; and (3) there are pending
4. On the assumption that bail is available in extradition issues on bail both in the extradition courts and the Court of
proceedings or proceedings leading to extradition, bail is not a Appeals, which, unless guided by the decision that this
matter of right but only of discretion upon clear showing by Honorable Court will render in this case, would resolve to
the applicant of the existence of special circumstances. grant bail in favor of the potential extraditees and would give
them opportunity to flee and thus, cause adverse effect on the
5. Assuming that bail is a matter of discretion in extradition ability of the Philippines to comply with its obligations under
proceedings, the public respondent received no evidence of existing extradition treaties.xviii[18]
special circumstances which may justify release on bail.
As a general rule, a petition for certiorari before a higher court
6. The risk that Jimenez will flee is high, and no special will not prosper unless the inferior court has been given,
circumstance exists that will engender a well-founded belief through a motion for reconsideration, a chance to correct the
that he will not flee. errors imputed to it. This rule, though, has certain exceptions:
(1) when the issue raised is purely of law, (2) when public
7. The conditions attached to the grant of bail are ineffectual interest is involved, or (3) in case of urgency.xix[19] As a fourth
and do not ensure compliance by the Philippines with its exception, the Court has also ruled that the filing of a motion
obligations under the RP-US Extradition Treaty. for reconsideration before availment of the remedy of
certiorari is not a sine qua non, when the questions raised are
8. The Court of Appeals Resolution promulgated on May 10, the same as those that have already been squarely argued and
2001 in the case entitled Eduardo T. Rodriguez et al. vs. The exhaustively passed upon by the lower court.xx[20] Aside from
Hon. Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 17, Manila, CA-G.R. SP No. being of this nature, the issues in the present case also involve
64589, relied upon by the public respondent in granting bail, pure questions of law that are of public interest. Hence, a
had been recalled before the issuance of the subject bail motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with.
orders.xiv[14]
Likewise, this Court has allowed a direct invocation of its
In sum, the substantive questions that this Court will address original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari when there are
are: (1) whether Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing special and important reasons therefor.xxi[21] In Fortich v.
before a warrant for his arrest can be issued, and (2) whether Coronaxxii[22]we stated:
he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the
2
[T]he Supreme Court has the full discretionary power to take extradition will aid us in properly deciding the issues raised
cognizance of the petition filed directly [before] it if compelling here.
reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised,
warrant. This has been the judicial policy to be observed and 1. Extradition Is a Major Instrument for the Suppression of
which has been reiterated in subsequent cases, namely: Uy vs. Crime.
Contreras, et. al., Torres vs. Arranz, Bercero vs. De Guzman,
and, Advincula vs. Legaspi, et. al. As we have further stated in First, extradition treaties are entered into for the purpose of
Cuaresma: suppressing crimexxvii[27] by facilitating the arrest and the
custodial transferxxviii[28] of a fugitivexxix[29] from one state
x x x. A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts original to the other.
jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when
there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and With the advent of easier and faster means of international
specifically set out in the petition. This is established policy. x x travel, the flight of affluent criminals from one country to
x. another for the purpose of committing crime and evading
prosecution has become more frequent. Accordingly,
Pursuant to said judicial policy, we resolve to take primary governments are adjusting their methods of dealing with
jurisdiction over the present petition in the interest of speedy criminals and crimes that transcend international boundaries.
justice and to avoid future litigations so as to promptly put an
end to the present controversy which, as correctly observed by Today, a majority of nations in the world community have
petitioners, has sparked national interest because of the come to look upon extradition as the major effective
magnitude of the problem created by the issuance of the instrument of international co-operation in the suppression of
assailed resolution. Moreover, x x x requiring the petitioners to crime.xxx[30] It is the only regular system that has been
file their petition first with the Court of Appeals would only devised to return fugitives to the jurisdiction of a court
result in a waste of time and money. competent to try them in accordance with municipal and
international law.xxxi[31]
That the Court has the power to set aside its own rules in the
higher interests of justice is well-entrenched in our An important practical effect x x x of the recognition of the
jurisprudence. We reiterate what we said in Piczon vs. Court of principle that criminals should be restored to a jurisdiction
Appeals:xxiii[23] competent to try and punish them is that the number of
criminals seeking refuge abroad will be reduced. For to the
Be it remembered that rules of procedure are but mere tools extent that efficient means of detection and the threat of
designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and punishment play a significant role in the deterrence of crime
rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend within the territorial limits of a State, so the existence of
to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must effective extradition arrangements and the consequent
always be avoided. Time and again, this Court has suspended certainty of return to the locus delicti commissi play a
its own rules and excepted a particular case from their corresponding role in the deterrence of flight abroad in order
operation whenever the higher interests of justice so require. to escape the consequence of crime. x x x. From an absence of
In the instant petition, we forego a lengthy disquisition of the extradition arrangements flight abroad by the ingenious
proper procedure that should have been taken by the parties criminal receives direct encouragement and thus indirectly
involved and proceed directly to the merits of the case. does the commission of crime itself.xxxii[32]

In a number of other exceptional cases,xxiv[24] we held as In Secretary v. Lantionxxxiii[33] we explained:

follows:
The Philippines also has a national interest to help in
This Court has original jurisdiction, concurrent with that of suppressing crimes and one way to do it is to facilitate the
Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals, over petitions extradition of persons covered by treaties duly entered [into]
for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and by our government. More and more, crimes are becoming the
habeas corpus, and we entertain direct resort to us in cases concern of one world. Laws involving crimes and crime
where special and important reasons or exceptional and prevention are undergoing universalization. One manifest
compelling circumstances justify the same. purpose of this trend towards globalization is to deny easy
refuge to a criminal whose activities threaten the peace and
In the interest of justice and to settle once and for all the progress of civilized countries. It is to the great interest of the
important issue of bail in extradition proceedings, we deem it Philippines to be part of this irreversible movement in light of
best to take cognizance of the present case. Such proceedings its vulnerability to crimes, especially transnational crimes.
constitute a matter of first impression over which there is, as
yet, no local jurisprudence to guide lower courts. Indeed, in this era of globalization, easier and faster
international travel, and an expanding ring of international
Five Postulates of Extradition crimes and criminals, we cannot afford to be an isolationist
state. We need to cooperate with other states in order to
The substantive issues raised in this case require an improve our chances of suppressing crime in our own country.
interpretation or construction of the treaty and the law on
extradition. A cardinal rule in the interpretation of a treaty or a 2. The Requesting State Will Accord Due Process to the
law is to ascertain and give effect to its intent.xxv[25] Since PD Accused
1069 is intended as a guide for the implementation of
extradition treaties to which the Philippines is a Second, an extradition treaty presupposes that both parties
signatory,xxvi[26] understanding certain postulates of thereto have examined, and that both accept and trust, each
others legal system and judicial process.xxxiv[34] More
3
pointedly, our duly authorized representatives signature on an Fourth, our executive branch of government voluntarily
extradition treaty signifies our confidence in the capacity and entered into the Extradition Treaty, and our legislative branch
the willingness of the other state to protect the basic rights of ratified it. Hence, the Treaty carries the presumption that its
the person sought to be extradited.xxxv[35] That signature implementation will serve the national interest.
signifies our full faith that the accused will be given, upon
extradition to the requesting state, all relevant and basic rights Fulfilling our obligations under the Extradition Treaty promotes
in the criminal proceedings that will take place therein; comityxl[40]with the requesting state. On the other hand,
otherwise, the treaty would not have been signed, or would failure to fulfill our obligations thereunder paints a bad image
have been directly attacked for its unconstitutionality. of our country before the world community. Such failure
would discourage other states from entering into treaties with
3. The Proceedings Are Sui Generis us, particularly an extradition treaty that hinges on
reciprocity.xli[41]
Third, as pointed out in Secretary of Justice v. Lantion,xxxvi[36]
extradition proceedings are not criminal in nature. In criminal Verily, we are bound by pacta sunt servanda to comply in good
proceedings, the constitutional rights of the accused are at faith with our obligations under the Treaty.xlii[42] This
fore; in extradition which is sui generis -- in a class by itself -- principle requires that we deliver the accused to the
they are not. requesting country if the conditions precedent to extradition,
as set forth in the Treaty, are satisfied. In other words, [t]he
An extradition [proceeding] is sui generis. It is not a criminal demanding government, when it has done all that the treaty
proceeding which will call into operation all the rights of an and the law require it to do, is entitled to the delivery of the
accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. To begin with, the accused on the issue of the proper warrant, and the other
process of extradition does not involve the determination of government is under obligation to make the surrender.xliii[43]
the guilt or innocence of an accused. His guilt or innocence will Accordingly, the Philippines must be ready and in a position to
be adjudged in the court of the state where he will be deliver the accused, should it be found proper.
extradited. Hence, as a rule, constitutional rights that are only
relevant to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused 5. There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight
cannot be invoked by an extraditee x x x.
Fifth, persons to be extradited are presumed to be flight risks.
xxx xxx xxx This prima facie presumption finds reinforcement in the
experiencexliv[44] of the executive branch: nothing short of
There are other differences between an extradition proceeding confinement can ensure that the accused will not flee the
and a criminal proceeding. An extradition proceeding is jurisdiction of the requested state in order to thwart their
summary in nature while criminal proceedings involve a full- extradition to the requesting state.
blown trial. In contradistinction to a criminal proceeding, the
rules of evidence in an extradition proceeding allow admission The present extradition case further validates the premise that
of evidence under less stringent standards. In terms of the persons sought to be extradited have a propensity to flee.
quantum of evidence to be satisfied, a criminal case requires Indeed, extradition hearings would not even begin, if only the
proof beyond reasonable doubt for conviction while a fugitive accused were willing to submit to trial in the requesting
may be ordered extradited upon showing of the existence of a country.xlv[45] Prior acts of herein respondent -- (1) leaving
prima facie case. Finally, unlike in a criminal case where the requesting state right before the conclusion of his
judgment becomes executory upon being rendered final, in an indictment proceedings there; and (2) remaining in the
extradition proceeding, our courts may adjudge an individual requested state despite learning that the requesting state is
extraditable but the President has the final discretion to seeking his return and that the crimes he is charged with are
extradite him. The United States adheres to a similar practice bailable -- eloquently speak of his aversion to the processes in
whereby the Secretary of State exercises wide discretion in the requesting state, as well as his predisposition to avoid
balancing the equities of the case and the demands of the them at all cost. These circumstances point to an ever-present,
nations foreign relations before making the ultimate decision underlying high risk of flight. He has demonstrated that he has
to extradite. the capacity and the will to flee. Having fled once, what is
there to stop him, given sufficient opportunity, from fleeing a
Given the foregoing, it is evident that the extradition court is second time?
not called upon to ascertain the guilt or the innocence of the
person sought to be extradited.xxxvii[37] Such determination First Substantive Issue:
during the extradition proceedings will only result in needless Is Respondent Entitled to Notice and Hearing
duplication and delay. Extradition is merely a measure of Before the Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest?
international judicial assistance through which a person
charged with or convicted of a crime is restored to a Petitioner contends that the procedure adopted by the RTC --
jurisdiction with the best claim to try that person. It is not part informing the accused, a fugitive from justice, that an
of the function of the assisting authorities to enter into Extradition Petition has been filed against him, and that
questions that are the prerogative of that petitioner is seeking his arrest -- gives him notice to escape
jurisdiction.xxxviii[38] The ultimate purpose of extradition and to avoid extradition. Moreover, petitioner pleads that such
proceedings in court is only to determine whether the procedure may set a dangerous precedent, in that those
extradition request complies with the Extradition Treaty, and sought to be extradited -- including terrorists, mass murderers
whether the person sought is extraditable.xxxix[39] and war criminals -- may invoke it in future extradition cases.

4. Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith. On the other hand, Respondent Jimenez argues that he should
not be hurriedly and arbitrarily deprived of his constitutional
right to liberty without due process. He further asserts that

4
there is as yet no specific law or rule setting forth the [excerpts] Statements Referenced in the Affidavit of Angela
procedure prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest, after the Byers and enclosed Statements in two volumes; (4) Annex GG,
petition for extradition has been filed in court; ergo, the the Exhibit J Table of Contents for Supplemental Evidentiary
formulation of that procedure is within the discretion of the Appendix with enclosed Exhibits 121 to 132; and (5) Annex
presiding judge. MM, the Exhibit L Appendix of Witness [excerpts] Statements
Referenced in the Affidavit of Betty Steward and enclosed
Both parties cite Section 6 of PD 1069 in support of their Statements in two volumes.xlix[49]
arguments. It states:
It is evident that respondent judge could have already gotten
SEC. 6. Issuance of Summons; Temporary Arrest; Hearing, an impression from these records adequate for him to make an
Service of Notices.- (1) Immediately upon receipt of the initial determination of whether the accused was someone
petition, the presiding judge of the court shall, as soon as who should immediately be arrested in order to best serve the
practicable, summon the accused to appear and to answer the ends of justice. He could have determined whether such facts
petition on the day and hour fixed in the order. [H]e may issue and circumstances existed as would lead a reasonably discreet
a warrant for the immediate arrest of the accused which may and prudent person to believe that the extradition request was
be served any where within the Philippines if it appears to prima facie meritorious. In point of fact, he actually concluded
the presiding judge that the immediate arrest and temporary from these supporting documents that probable cause did
detention of the accused will best serve the ends of justice. exist. In the second questioned Order, he stated:
Upon receipt of the answer, or should the accused after having
received the summons fail to answer within the time fixed, the In the instant petition, the documents sent by the US
presiding judge shall hear the case or set another date for the Government in support of [its] request for extradition of
hearing thereof. herein respondent are enough to convince the Court of the
existence of probable cause to proceed with the hearing
(2) The order and notice as well as a copy of the warrant of against the extraditee.l[50]
arrest, if issued, shall be promptly served each upon the
accused and the attorney having charge of the case. (Emphasis We stress that the prima facie existence of probable cause for
ours) hearing the petition and, a priori, for issuing an arrest warrant
was already evident from the Petition itself and its supporting
Does this provision sanction RTC Judge Purganans act of documents. Hence, after having already determined therefrom
immediately setting for hearing the issuance of a warrant of that a prima facie finding did exist, respondent judge gravely
arrest? We rule in the negative. abused his discretion when he set the matter for hearing upon
motion of Jimenez.li[51]
1. On the Basis of the Extradition Law
Moreover, the law specifies that the court sets a hearing upon
It is significant to note that Section 6 of PD 1069, our receipt of the answer or upon failure of the accused to answer
Extradition Law, uses the word immediate to qualify the arrest after receiving the summons. In connection with the matter of
of the accused. This qualification would be rendered nugatory immediate arrest, however, the word hearing is notably absent
by setting for hearing the issuance of the arrest warrant. from the provision. Evidently, had the holding of a hearing at
Hearing entails sending notices to the opposing parties,xlvi[46] that stage been intended, the law could have easily so
receiving facts and argumentsxlvii[47] from them,xlviii[48] and provided. It also bears emphasizing at this point that
giving them time to prepare and present such facts and extradition proceedings are summarylii[52]in nature. Hence,
arguments. Arrest subsequent to a hearing can no longer be the silence of the Law and the Treaty leans to the more
considered immediate. The law could not have intended the reasonable interpretation that there is no intention to
word as a mere superfluity but, on the whole, as a means of punctuate with a hearing every little step in the entire
imparting a sense of urgency and swiftness in the proceedings.
determination of whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.
It is taken for granted that the contracting parties intend
By using the phrase if it appears, the law further conveys that something reasonable and something not inconsistent with
accuracy is not as important as speed at such early stage. The generally recognized principles of International Law, nor with
trial court is not expected to make an exhaustive previous treaty obligations towards third States. If, therefore,
determination to ferret out the true and actual situation, the meaning of a treaty is ambiguous, the reasonable meaning
immediately upon the filing of the petition. From the is to be preferred to the unreasonable, the more reasonable to
knowledge and the material then available to it, the court is the less reasonable x x x .liii[53]
expected merely to get a good first impression -- a prima facie
finding -- sufficient to make a speedy initial determination as Verily, as argued by petitioner, sending to persons sought to
regards the arrest and detention of the accused. be extradited a notice of the request for their arrest and
setting it for hearing at some future date would give them
Attached to the Petition for Extradition, with a Certificate of ample opportunity to prepare and execute an escape. Neither
Authentication among others, were the following: (1) Annex H, the Treaty nor the Law could have intended that consequence,
the Affidavit executed on May 26, 1999 by Mr. Michael E. for the very purpose of both would have been defeated by the
Savage -- trial attorney in the Campaign Financing Task Force escape of the accused from the requested state.
of the Criminal Division of the US Department of Justice; (2)
Annexes H to G, evidentiary Appendices of various exhibits 2. On the Basis of the Constitution
that constituted evidence of the crimes charged in the
Indictment, with Exhibits 1 to 120 (duly authenticated exhibits Even Section 2 of Article III of our Constitution, which is
that constituted evidence of the crimes charged in the invoked by Jimenez, does not require a notice or a hearing
Indictment); (3) Annex BB, the Exhibit I Appendix of Witness before the issuance of a warrant of arrest. It provides:

5
Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, Extradition Treaty and Law, and (c) the person sought is
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and extraditable. At his discretion, the judge may require the
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be submission of further documentation or may personally
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall examine the affiants and witnesses of the petitioner. If, in spite
issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally of this study and examination, no prima facie findinglviii[58] is
by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of possible, the petition may be dismissed at the discretion of the
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and judge.
particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized. On the other hand, if the presence of a prima facie case is
determined, then the magistrate must immediately issue a
To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrant for the arrest of the extraditee, who is at the same
warrants, the Constitution itself requires only the examination time summoned to answer the petition and to appear at
-- under oath or affirmation -- of complainants and the scheduled summary hearings. Prior to the issuance of the
witnesses they may produce. There is no requirement to notify warrant, the judge must not inform or notify the potential
and hear the accused before the issuance of warrants of arrest. extraditee of the pendency of the petition, lest the latter be
given the opportunity to escape and frustrate the proceedings.
In Ho v. Peopleliv[54] and in all the cases cited therein, never In our opinion, the foregoing procedure will best serve the
was a judge required to go to the extent of conducting a ends of justice in extradition cases.
hearing just for the purpose of personally determining
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. All we Second Substantive Issue:
required was that the judge must have sufficient supporting Is Respondent Entitled to Bail?
documents upon which to make his independent judgment, or
at the very least, upon which to verify the findings of the Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution, is worded as follows:
prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause.lv[55]
Art. III, Sec. 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses
In Webb v. De Leon,lvi[56] the Court categorically stated that a punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is
judge was not supposed to conduct a hearing before issuing a strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient
warrant of arrest: sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided
by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the
Again, we stress that before issuing warrants of arrest, judges privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive
merely determine personally the probability, not the certainty bail shall not be required.
of guilt of an accused. In doing so, judges do not conduct a de
novo hearing to determine the existence of probable cause. Respondent Mark B. Jimenez maintains that this constitutional
They just personally review the initial determination of the provision secures the right to bail of all persons, including
prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by those sought to be extradited. Supposedly, the only exceptions
substantial evidence. are the ones charged with offenses punishable with reclusion
perpetua, when evidence of guilt is strong. He also alleges the
At most, in cases of clear insufficiency of evidence on record, relevance to the present case of Section 4lix[59] of Rule 114 of
judges merely further examine complainants and their the Rules of Court which, insofar as practicable and consistent
witnesses.lvii[57] In the present case, validating the act of with the summary nature of extradition proceedings, shall also
respondent judge and instituting the practice of hearing the apply according to Section 9 of PD 1069.
accused and his witnesses at this early stage would be
discordant with the rationale for the entire system. If the On the other hand, petitioner claims that there is no provision
accused were allowed to be heard and necessarily to present in the Philippine Constitution granting the right to bail to a
evidence during the prima facie determination for the issuance person who is the subject of an extradition request and arrest
of a warrant of arrest, what would stop him from presenting warrant.
his entire plethora of defenses at this stage -- if he so desires --
in his effort to negate a prima facie finding? Such a procedure Extradition Different from Ordinary Criminal Proceedings
could convert the determination of a prima facie case into a
full-blown trial of the entire proceedings and possibly make
We agree with petitioner. As suggested by the use of the word
trial of the main case superfluous. This scenario is also
conviction, the constitutional provision on bail quoted above,
anathema to the summary nature of extraditions.
as well as Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, applies
only when a person has been arrested and detained for
That the case under consideration is an extradition and not a violation of Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply to
criminal action is not sufficient to justify the adoption of a set extradition proceedings, because extradition courts do not
of procedures more protective of the accused. If a different render judgments of conviction or acquittal.
procedure were called for at all, a more restrictive one -- not
the opposite -- would be justified in view of respondents
Moreover, the constitutional right to bail flows from the
demonstrated predisposition to flee.
presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who
should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter
Since this is a matter of first impression, we deem it wise to he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be proved
restate the proper procedure: beyond reasonable doubt.lx[60] It follows that the
constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a case like
Upon receipt of a petition for extradition and its supporting extradition, where the presumption of innocence is not at
documents, the judge must study them and make, as soon as issue.
possible, a prima facie finding whether (a) they are sufficient in
form and substance, (b) they show compliance with the

6
The provision in the Constitution stating that the right to bail accord Respondent Jimenez his personal liberty in the span of
shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of time that it takes to resolve the Petition for Extradition? His
habeas corpus is suspended does not detract from the rule supposed immediate deprivation of liberty without the due
that the constitutional right to bail is available only in criminal process that he had previously shunned pales against the
proceedings. It must be noted that the suspension of the governments interest in fulfilling its Extradition Treaty
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus finds application only to obligations and in cooperating with the world community in
persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in the suppression of crime. Indeed, [c]onstitutional liberties do
or directly connected with invasion.lxi[61] Hence, the second not exist in a vacuum; the due process rights accorded to
sentence in the constitutional provision on bail merely individuals must be carefully balanced against exigent and
emphasizes the right to bail in criminal proceedings for the palpable government interests.lxvi[66]
aforementioned offenses. It cannot be taken to mean that the
right is available even in extradition proceedings that are not Too, we cannot allow our country to be a haven for fugitives,
criminal in nature. cowards and weaklings who, instead of facing the
consequences of their actions, choose to run and hide. Hence,
That the offenses for which Jimenez is sought to be extradited it would not be good policy to increase the risk of violating our
are bailable in the United States is not an argument to grant treaty obligations if, through overprotection or excessively
him one in the present case. To stress, extradition proceedings liberal treatment, persons sought to be extradited are able to
are separate and distinct from the trial for the offenses for evade arrest or escape from our custody. In the absence of any
which he is charged. He should apply for bail before the courts provision -- in the Constitution, the law or the treaty --
trying the criminal cases against him, not before the expressly guaranteeing the right to bail in extradition
extradition court. proceedings, adopting the practice of not granting them bail,
as a general rule, would be a step towards deterring fugitives
No Violation of Due Process from coming to the Philippines to hide from or evade their
prosecutors.
Respondent Jimenez cites the foreign case Parettilxii[62] in
arguing that, constitutionally, [n]o one shall be deprived of x x The denial of bail as a matter of course in extradition cases
x liberty x x x without due process of law. falls into place with and gives life to Article 14lxvii[67] of the
Treaty, since this practice would encourage the accused to
Contrary to his contention, his detention prior to the voluntarily surrender to the requesting state to cut short their
conclusion of the extradition proceedings does not amount to detention here. Likewise, their detention pending the
a violation of his right to due process. We iterate the familiar resolution of extradition proceedings would fall into place with
doctrine that the essence of due process is the opportunity to the emphasis of the Extradition Law on the summary nature of
be heardlxiii[63] but, at the same time, point out that the extradition cases and the need for their speedy disposition.
doctrine does not always call for a prior opportunity to be
heard.lxiv[64] Where the circumstances -- such as those Exceptions to the No Bail Rule
present in an extradition case -- call for it, a subsequent
opportunity to be heard is enough.lxv[65] In the present case, The rule, we repeat, is that bail is not a matter of right in
respondent will be given full opportunity to be heard extradition cases. However, the judiciary has the constitutional
subsequently, when the extradition court hears the Petition for duty to curb grave abuse of discretionlxviii[68] and tyranny, as
Extradition. Hence, there is no violation of his right to due well as the power to promulgate rules to protect and enforce
process and fundamental fairness. constitutional rights.lxix[69] Furthermore, we believe that the
right to due process is broad enough to include the grant of
Contrary to the contention of Jimenez, we find no basic fairness to extraditees. Indeed, the right to due process
arbitrariness, either, in the immediate deprivation of his liberty extends to the life, liberty or property of every person. It is
prior to his being heard. That his arrest and detention will not dynamic and resilient, adaptable to every situation calling for
be arbitrary is sufficiently ensured by (1) the DOJs filing in its application.lxx[70]
court the Petition with its supporting documents after a
determination that the extradition request meets the Accordingly and to best serve the ends of justice, we believe
requirements of the law and the relevant treaty; (2) the and so hold that, after a potential extraditee has been arrested
extradition judges independent prima facie determination that or placed under the custody of the law, bail may be applied for
his arrest will best serve the ends of justice before the issuance and granted as an exception, only upon a clear and convincing
of a warrant for his arrest; and (3) his opportunity, once he is showing (1) that, once granted bail, the applicant will not be a
under the courts custody, to apply for bail as an exception to flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2) that there
the no-initial-bail rule. exist special, humanitarian and compelling
circumstanceslxxi[71] including, as a matter of reciprocity,
It is also worth noting that before the US government those cited by the highest court in the requesting state when it
requested the extradition of respondent, proceedings had grants provisional liberty in extradition cases therein.
already been conducted in that country. But because he left
the jurisdiction of the requesting state before those Since this exception has no express or specific statutory basis,
proceedings could be completed, it was hindered from and since it is derived essentially from general principles of
continuing with the due processes prescribed under its laws. justice and fairness, the applicant bears the burden of proving
His invocation of due process now has thus become hollow. He the above two-tiered requirement with clarity, precision and
already had that opportunity in the requesting state; yet, emphatic forcefulness. The Court realizes that extradition is
instead of taking it, he ran away. basically an executive, not a judicial, responsibility arising from
the presidential power to conduct foreign relations. In its
In this light, would it be proper and just for the government to barest concept, it partakes of the nature of police assistance
increase the risk of violating its treaty obligations in order to amongst states, which is not normally a judicial prerogative.

7
Hence, any intrusion by the courts into the exercise of this prisoner into a different classification from those others who
power should be characterized by caution, so that the vital are validly restrained by law.
international and bilateral interests of our country will not be
unreasonably impeded or compromised. In short, while this A strict scrutiny of classifications is essential lest[,] wittingly or
Court is ever protective of the sporting idea of fair play, it also otherwise, insidious discriminations are made in favor of or
recognizes the limits of its own prerogatives and the need to against groups or types of individuals.
fulfill international obligations.
The Court cannot validate badges of inequality. The necessities
Along this line, Jimenez contends that there are special imposed by public welfare may justify exercise of government
circumstances that are compelling enough for the Court to authority to regulate even if thereby certain groups may
grant his request for provisional release on bail. We have plausibly assert that their interests are disregarded.
carefully examined these circumstances and shall now discuss
them. We, therefore, find that election to the position of
Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law
1. Alleged Disenfranchisement enforcement. The functions and duties of the office are not
substantial distinctions which lift him from the class of
While his extradition was pending, Respondent Jimenez was prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty
elected as a member of the House of Representatives. On that of movement. Lawful arrest and confinement are germane to
basis, he claims that his detention will disenfranchise his the purposes of the law and apply to all those belonging to the
Manila district of 600,000 residents. We are not persuaded. In same class.lxxiii[73]
People v. Jalosjos,lxxii[72] the Court has already debunked the
disenfranchisement argument when it ruled thus: It must be noted that even before private respondent ran for
and won a congressional seat in Manila, it was already of
When the voters of his district elected the accused-appellant public knowledge that the United States was requesting his
to Congress, they did so with full awareness of the limitations extradition. Hence, his constituents were or should have been
on his freedom of action. They did so with the knowledge that prepared for the consequences of the extradition case against
he could achieve only such legislative results which he could their representative, including his detention pending the final
accomplish within the confines of prison. To give a more resolution of the case. Premises considered and in line with
drastic illustration, if voters elect a person with full knowledge Jalosjos, we are constrained to rule against his claim that his
that he is suffering from a terminal illness, they do so knowing election to public office is by itself a compelling reason to grant
that at any time, he may no longer serve his full term in office. him bail.

In the ultimate analysis, the issue before us boils down to a 2. Anticipated Delay
question of constitutional equal protection.
Respondent Jimenez further contends that because the
The Constitution guarantees: x x x nor shall any person be extradition proceedings are lengthy, it would be unfair to
denied the equal protection of laws. This simply means that all confine him during the pendency of the case. Again we are not
persons similarly situated shall be treated alike both in rights convinced. We must emphasize that extradition cases are
enjoyed and responsibilities imposed. The organs of summary in nature. They are resorted to merely to determine
government may not show any undue favoritism or hostility to whether the extradition petition and its annexes conform to
any person. Neither partiality nor prejudice shall be displayed. the Extradition Treaty, not to determine guilt or innocence.
Neither is it, as a rule, intended to address issues relevant to
Does being an elective official result in a substantial distinction the constitutional rights available to the accused in a criminal
that allows different treatment? Is being a Congressman a action.
substantial differentiation which removes the accused-
appellant as a prisoner from the same class as all persons We are not overruling the possibility that petitioner may, in
validly confined under law? bad faith, unduly delay the proceedings. This is quite another
matter that is not at issue here. Thus, any further discussion of
The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by this point would be merely anticipatory and academic.
public officers has never been an excuse to free a person
validly [from] prison. The duties imposed by the mandate of However, if the delay is due to maneuverings of respondent,
the people are multifarious. The accused-appellant asserts that with all the more reason would the grant of bail not be
the duty to legislate ranks highest in the hierarchy of justified. Giving premium to delay by considering it as a special
government. The accused-appellant is only one of 250 circumstance for the grant of bail would be tantamount to
members of the House of Representatives, not to mention the giving him the power to grant bail to himself. It would also
24 members of the Senate, charged with the duties of encourage him to stretch out and unreasonably delay the
legislation. Congress continues to function well in the physical extradition proceedings even more. This we cannot allow.
absence of one or a few of its members. Depending on the
exigency of Government that has to be addressed, the 3. Not a Flight Risk?
President or the Supreme Court can also be deemed the
highest for that particular duty. The importance of a function Jimenez further claims that he is not a flight risk. To support
depends on the need for its exercise. The duty of a mother to this claim, he stresses that he learned of the extradition
nurse her infant is most compelling under the law of nature. A request in June 1999; yet, he has not fled the country. True, he
doctor with unique skills has the duty to save the lives of those has not actually fled during the preliminary stages of the
with a particular affliction. An elective governor has to serve request for his extradition. Yet, this fact cannot be taken to
provincial constituents. A police officer must maintain peace mean that he will not flee as the process moves forward to its
and order. Never has the call of a particular duty lifted a conclusion, as he hears the footsteps of the requesting
8
government inching closer and closer. That he has not yet fled Summation
from the Philippines cannot be taken to mean that he will
stand his ground and still be within reach of our government if As we draw to a close, it is now time to summarize and stress
and when it matters; that is, upon the resolution of the these ten points:
Petition for Extradition.
1. The ultimate purpose of extradition proceedings is to
In any event, it is settled that bail may be applied for and determine whether the request expressed in the petition,
granted by the trial court at anytime after the applicant has supported by its annexes and the evidence that may be
been taken into custody and prior to judgment, even after bail adduced during the hearing of the petition, complies with the
has been previously denied. In the present case, the Extradition Treaty and Law; and whether the person sought is
extradition court may continue hearing evidence on the extraditable. The proceedings are intended merely to assist the
application for bail, which may be granted in accordance with requesting state in bringing the accused -- or the fugitive who
the guidelines in this Decision. has illegally escaped -- back to its territory, so that the criminal
process may proceed therein.
Brief Refutation of Dissents
2. By entering into an extradition treaty, the Philippines is
The proposal to remand this case to the extradition court, we deemed to have reposed its trust in the reliability or soundness
believe, is totally unnecessary; in fact, it is a cop-out. The of the legal and judicial system of its treaty partner, as well as
parties -- in particular, Respondent Jimenez -- have been given in the ability and the willingness of the latter to grant basic
more than sufficient opportunity both by the trial court and rights to the accused in the pending criminal case therein.
this Court to discuss fully and exhaustively private respondents
claim to bail. As already stated, the RTC set for hearing not 3. By nature then, extradition proceedings are not equivalent
only petitioners application for an arrest warrant, but also to a criminal case in which guilt or innocence is determined.
private respondents prayer for temporary liberty. Thereafter Consequently, an extradition case is not one in which the
required by the RTC were memoranda on the arrest, then constitutional rights of the accused are necessarily available. It
position papers on the application for bail, both of which were is more akin, if at all, to a courts request to police authorities
separately filed by the parties. for the arrest of the accused who is at large or has escaped
detention or jumped bail. Having once escaped the jurisdiction
This Court has meticulously pored over the Petition, the of the requesting state, the reasonable prima facie
Comment, the Reply, the lengthy Memoranda and the Position presumption is that the person would escape again if given the
Papers of both parties. Additionally, it has patiently heard opportunity.
them in Oral Arguments, a procedure not normally observed in
the great majority of cases in this Tribunal. Moreover, after the 4. Immediately upon receipt of the petition for extradition and
Memos had been submitted, the parties -- particularly the its supporting documents, the judge shall make a prima facie
potential extraditee -- have bombarded this Court with finding whether the petition is sufficient in form and
additional pleadings -- entitled Manifestations by both parties substance, whether it complies with the Extradition Treaty and
and Counter-Manifestation by private respondent -- in which Law, and whether the person sought is extraditable. The
the main topic was Mr. Jimenezs plea for bail. magistrate has discretion to require the petitioner to submit
further documentation, or to personally examine the affiants
A remand would mean that this long, tedious process would be or witnesses. If convinced that a prima facie case exists, the
repeated in its entirety. The trial court would again hear judge immediately issues a warrant for the arrest of the
factual and evidentiary matters. Be it noted, however, that, in potential extraditee and summons him or her to answer and to
all his voluminous pleadings and verbal propositions, private appear at scheduled hearings on the petition.
respondent has not asked for a remand. Evidently, even he
realizes that there is absolutely no need to rehear factual 5. After being taken into custody, potential extraditees may
matters. Indeed, the inadequacy lies not in the factual apply for bail. Since the applicants have a history of
presentation of Mr. Jimenez. Rather, it lies in his legal absconding, they have the burden of showing that (a) there is
arguments. Remanding the case will not solve this utter lack of no flight risk and no danger to the community; and (b) there
persuasion and strength in his legal reasoning. exist special, humanitarian or compelling circumstances. The
grounds used by the highest court in the requesting state for
In short, this Court -- as shown by this Decision and the spirited the grant of bail therein may be considered, under the
Concurring, Separate and Dissenting Opinions written by the principle of reciprocity as a special circumstance. In extradition
learned justices themselves -- has exhaustively deliberated and cases, bail is not a matter of right; it is subject to judicial
carefully passed upon all relevant questions in this case. Thus, discretion in the context of the peculiar facts of each case.
a remand will not serve any useful purpose; it will only further
delay these already very delayed proceedings,lxxiv[74] which 6. Potential extraditees are entitled to the rights to due
our Extradition Law requires to be summary in character. What process and to fundamental fairness. Due process does not
we need now is prudent and deliberate speed, not always call for a prior opportunity to be heard. A subsequent
unnecessary and convoluted delay. What is needed is a firm opportunity is sufficient due to the flight risk involved. Indeed,
decision on the merits, not a circuitous cop-out. available during the hearings on the petition and the answer is
the full chance to be heard and to enjoy fundamental fairness
Then, there is also the suggestion that this Court is allegedly that is compatible with the summary nature of extradition.
disregarding basic freedoms when a case is one of extradition.
We believe that this charge is not only baseless, but also 7. This Court will always remain a protector of human rights, a
unfair. Suffice it to say that, in its length and breath, this bastion of liberty, a bulwark of democracy and the conscience
Decision has taken special cognizance of the rights to due of society. But it is also well aware of the limitations of its
process and fundamental fairness of potential extraditees.

9
authority and of the need for respect for the prerogatives of
the other co-equal and co-independent organs of government.

8. We realize that extradition is essentially an executive, not a

judicial, responsibility arising out of the presidential power to
conduct foreign relations and to implement treaties. Thus, the
Executive Department of government has broad discretion in
its duty and power of implementation.

9. On the other hand, courts merely perform oversight

functions and exercise review authority to prevent or excise
grave abuse and tyranny. They should not allow contortions,
delays and over-due process every little step of the way, lest
these summary extradition proceedings become not only
inutile but also sources of international embarrassment due to
our inability to comply in good faith with a treaty partners
simple request to return a fugitive. Worse, our country should
not be converted into a dubious haven where fugitives and
escapees can unreasonably delay, mummify, mock, frustrate,
checkmate and defeat the quest for bilateral justice and
international cooperation.

10. At bottom, extradition proceedings should be conducted

with all deliberate speed to determine compliance with the
Extradition Treaty and Law; and, while safeguarding basic
individual rights, to avoid the legalistic contortions, delays
and technicalities that may negate that purpose.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed RTC Order

dated May 23, 2001 is hereby declared NULL and VOID, while
the challenged Order dated July 3, 2001 is SET ASIDE insofar as
it granted bail to Respondent Mark Jimenez. The bail bond
posted by private respondent is CANCELLED. The Regional Trial
Court of Manila is directed to conduct the extradition
proceedings before it, with all deliberate speed pursuant to
the spirit and the letter of our Extradition Treaty with the
United States as well as our Extradition Law. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Austria-Martinez, Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Mendoza, and Callejo, Sr., joins in the

concurring opinion of Justice Carpio.

Bellosillo, J., see Separate Opinion.

Puno, J., see Separate Opinion.

Vitug, J., see Dissenting Opinion.

Quisumbing, J., concur in the separate opinion of Justice Puno.

Ynares-Santiago, J., see Dissenting Opinion.

Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., join in the Separate Opinion of Justice

Ynares-Santiago.

Carpio, J., see concurring Opinion.

10
11
12