Gov¶t of Hong Kong vs. Olalia, G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007
This case discusses whether the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of Rights extends to a prospective extradite in an extradition
1
proceeding.On January 30, 1995, the Republic of the Philippines and the then British Crown Colony of Hong Kongsigned an "Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons." It took effect on June 20,1997.
The
Pe
tition
e
r
is the
Gov
e
rnm
e
nt of Hong Kong Sp
ec
ial Administrativ
e
R
e
gion
, represented bythe
Ph
ilippin
e
D
e
partm
e
nt of Justi
ce
The
R
e
spond
e
nts
are
Judg
e
F
e
lix Olalia
and
Juan Antonio Muñoz
Fa
c
ts:
Private respondent
Muñoz was
ch
arg
e
d b
e
for
e
t
he
Hong Kong Court
with three (3)counts of the offense of "
a
cce
pting an advantag
e
as ag
e
nt
," in violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of thePrevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201 of Hong Kong. He also faces seven (7) counts of the offenseof
c
onspira
cy
to d
e
fraud
, penalized by the common law of Hong Kong. Warrants of arrest wereissued against him. If convicted, he faces a jail term of seven (7) to fourteen (14) years for eachcharge.On September 13, 1999, the DOJ received from the Hong Kong Department of Justice
a r
eq
u
e
st fort
he
provisional arr
e
st of privat
e
r
e
spond
e
nt
. The RTC, Branch 19, Manila issued an Order of Arrest against private respondent. That same day, the
NBI ag
e
nts arr
e
st
e
d and d
e
tain
e
d
h
im
.Private respondent filed a
p
e
tition for bail
which was opposed by petitioner. After hearing, JudgeBernardo, Jr.
issu
e
d an Ord
e
r d
e
n
y
ing t
he
p
e
tition for bail
, holding that there is no Philippine lawgranting bail in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high "flight risk." Judge Bernardo, Jr.inhibited himself from further hearing the case, it was then raffled off to Branch 8 presided byrespondent judge. Private respondent
fil
e
d a motion for r
ec
onsid
e
ration
of the Order denying hisapplication for bail
and t
h
is was grant
e
d
by respondent judge.Petitioner filed an urgent motion to vacate the above Order, but it was denied by respondent judge.Hence, the instant petition.
Issu
e
:
Whether or not respondent judge acted with
grav
e
abus
e
of dis
c
r
e
tion
amounting to lackor excess of jurisdiction as there is no provision in the Constitution
granting bail to a pot
e
ntial
e
xtradit
ee
.
H
e
ld:
No.
Bearing in mind the purpose of extradition proceedings, the premise behind the issuanceof the arrest warrant and the "temporary detention" is the possibility of flight of the potentialextraditee. This is based on the assumption that such extraditee is a fugitive from justice. Given theforegoing, the prospective extraditee thus bears the
onus probandi
of showing that he or she is not aflight risk and should be granted bail.
1
Section 2(a) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law) defines "extradition" as "the removal of anaccused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting stateor government to hold him in connection with any criminal investigation directed against him or the execution of a penaltyimposed on him under the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or government."
Ratio:
The Philippines, along with the other members of the family of nations,
c
ommitt
e
d to up
h
old t
he
fundam
e
ntal
h
uman rig
h
ts
as well as value the worth and dignity of every person. Clearly, theright of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this jurisdiction
must b
e
vi
e
w
e
d in t
he
lig
h
t of t
he
various tr
e
at
y
obligations of t
he
Ph
ilippin
e
s
c
on
ce
rning r
e
sp
ec
t for t
he
promotion andprot
ec
tion of
h
uman rig
h
ts.
Under these treatie
Gov¶t of Hong Kong vs. Olalia, G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007
This case discusses whether the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of Rights extends to a prospective extradite in an extradition
1
proceeding.On January 30, 1995, the Republic of the Philippines and the then British Crown Colony of Hong Kongsigned an "Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons." It took effect on June 20,1997.
The
Pe
tition
e
r
is the
Gov
e
rnm
e
nt of Hong Kong Sp
ec
ial Administrativ
e
R
e
gion
, represented bythe
Ph
ilippin
e
D
e
partm
e
nt of Justi
ce
The
R
e
spond
e
nts
are
Judg
e
F
e
lix Olalia
and
Juan Antonio Muñoz
Fa
c
ts:
Private respondent
Muñoz was
ch
arg
e
d b
e
for
e
t
he
Hong Kong Court
with three (3)counts of the offense of "
a
cce
pting an advantag
e
as ag
e
nt
," in violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of thePrevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201 of Hong Kong. He also faces seven (7) counts of the offenseof
c
onspira
cy
to d
e
fraud
, penalized by the common law of Hong Kong. Warrants of arrest wereissued against him. If convicted, he faces a jail term of seven (7) to fourteen (14) years for eachcharge.On September 13, 1999, the DOJ received from the Hong Kong Department of Justice
a r
eq
u
e
st fort
he
provisional arr
e
st of privat
e
r
e
spond
e
nt
. The RTC, Branch 19, Manila issued an Order of Arrest against private respondent. That same day, the
NBI ag
e
nts arr
e
st
e
d and d
e
tain
e
d
h
im
.Private respondent filed a
p
e
tition for bail
which was opposed by petitioner. After hearing, JudgeBernardo, Jr.
issu
e
d an Ord
e
r d
e
n
y
ing t
he
p
e
tition for bail
, holding that there is no Philippine lawgranting bail in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high "flight risk." Judge Bernardo, Jr.inhibited himself from further hearing the case, it was then raffled off to Branch 8 presided byrespondent judge. Private respondent
fil
e
d a motion for r
ec
onsid
e
ration
of the Order denying hisapplication for bail
and t
h
is was grant
e
d
by respondent judge.Petitioner filed an urgent motion to vacate the above Order, but it was denied by respondent judge.Hence, the instant petition.
Issu
e
:
Whether or not respondent judge acted with
grav
e
abus
e
of dis
c
r
e
tion
amounting to lackor excess of jurisdiction as there is no provision in the Constitution
granting bail to a pot
e
ntial
e
xtradit
ee
.
H
e
ld:
No.
Bearing in mind the purpose of extradition proceedings, the premise behind the issuanceof the arrest warrant and the "temporary detention" is the possibility of flight of the potentialextraditee. This is based on the assumption that such extraditee is a fugitive from justice. Given theforegoing, the prospective extraditee thus bears the
onus probandi
of showing that he or she is not aflight risk and should be granted bail.
1
Section 2(a) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law) defines "extradition" as "the removal of anaccused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting stateor government to hold him in connection with any criminal investigation directed against him or the execution of a penaltyimposed on him under the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or government."
Ratio:
The Philippines, along with the other members of the family of nations,
c
ommitt
e
d to up
h
old t
he
fundam
e
ntal
h
uman rig
h
ts
as well as value the worth and dignity of every person. Clearly, theright of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this jurisdiction
must b
e
vi
e
w
e
d in t
he
lig
h
t of t
he
various tr
e
at
y
obligations of t
he
Ph
ilippin
e
s
c
on
ce
rning r
e
sp
ec
t for t
he
promotion andprot
ec
tion of
h
uman rig
h
ts.
Under these treatie
Gov¶t of Hong Kong vs. Olalia, G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007
This case discusses whether the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of Rights extends to a prospective extradite in an extradition
1
proceeding.On January 30, 1995, the Republic of the Philippines and the then British Crown Colony of Hong Kongsigned an "Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons." It took effect on June 20,1997.
The
Pe
tition
e
r
is the
Gov
e
rnm
e
nt of Hong Kong Sp
ec
ial Administrativ
e
R
e
gion
, represented bythe
Ph
ilippin
e
D
e
partm
e
nt of Justi
ce
The
R
e
spond
e
nts
are
Judg
e
F
e
lix Olalia
and
Juan Antonio Muñoz
Fa
c
ts:
Private respondent
Muñoz was
ch
arg
e
d b
e
for
e
t
he
Hong Kong Court
with three (3)counts of the offense of "
a
cce
pting an advantag
e
as ag
e
nt
," in violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of thePrevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201 of Hong Kong. He also faces seven (7) counts of the offenseof
c
onspira
cy
to d
e
fraud
, penalized by the common law of Hong Kong. Warrants of arrest wereissued against him. If convicted, he faces a jail term of seven (7) to fourteen (14) years for eachcharge.On September 13, 1999, the DOJ received from the Hong Kong Department of Justice
a r
eq
u
e
st fort
he
provisional arr
e
st of privat
e
r
e
spond
e
nt
. The RTC, Branch 19, Manila issued an Order of Arrest against private respondent. That same day, the
NBI ag
e
nts arr
e
st
e
d and d
e
tain
e
d
h
im
.Private respondent filed a
p
e
tition for bail
which was opposed by petitioner. After hearing, JudgeBernardo, Jr.
issu
e
d an Ord
e
r d
e
n
y
ing t
he
p
e
tition for bail
, holding that there is no Philippine lawgranting bail in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high "flight risk." Judge Bernardo, Jr.inhibited himself from further hearing the case, it was then raffled off to Branch 8 presided byrespondent judge. Private respondent
fil
e
d a motion for r
ec
onsid
e
ration
of the Order denying hisapplication for bail
and t
h
is was grant
e
d
by respondent judge.Petitioner filed an urgent motion to vacate the above Order, but it was denied by respondent judge.Hence, the instant petition.
Issu
e
:
Whether or not respondent judge acted with
grav
e
abus
e
of dis
c
r
e
tion
amounting to lackor excess of jurisdiction as there is no provision in the Constitution
granting bail to a pot
e
ntial
e
xtradit
ee
.
H
e
ld:
No.
Bearing in mind the purpose of extradition proceedings, the premise behind the issuanceof the arrest warrant and the "temporary detention" is the possibility of flight of the potentialextraditee. This is based on the assumption that such extraditee is a fugitive from justice. Given theforegoing, the prospective extraditee thus bears the
onus probandi
of showing that he or she is not aflight risk and should be granted bail.
1
Section 2(a) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law) defines "extradition" as "the removal of anaccused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting stateor government to hold him in connection with any criminal investigation directed against him or the execution of a penaltyimposed on him under the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or government."
Ratio:
The Philippines, along with the other members of the family of nations,
c
ommitt
e
d to up
h
old t
he
fundam
e
ntal
h
uman rig
h
ts
as well as value the worth and dignity of every person. Clearly, theright of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this jurisdiction
must b
e
vi
e
w
e
d in t
he
lig
h
t of t
he
various tr
e
at
y
obligations of t
he
Ph
ilippin
e
s
c
on
ce
rning r
e
sp
ec
t for t
he
promotion andprot
ec
tion of
h
uman rig
h
ts.
Under these treatie