GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Represented by the Philippine Department of Justice, petitioner,

vs.

HON. GUILLERMO PURGANAN, Presiding Judge Regional Trial Court of Manila and

MARC JIMENEZ a.k.a. MARCIO BATACAN CRESPO, respondent

FACTS:

Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, 6 the United States Government, through diplomatic
channels, sent to the Philippine Government Note Verbale No. 0522 dated June 16, 1999, requesting the
extradition of Mark B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo. Upon receipt of the Notes and
documents, the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for
appropriate action, pursuant to Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1069, also known as the
Extradition Law.

Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Respondent Jimenez filed before it an "Urgent
Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion," which prayed that petitioner’s application for an arrest warrant be set
for hearing.

ISSUE:

Whether or not In extradition proceedings the prospective extradites are entitled to notice and hearing
before the issuance of warrants for their arrest.

HELD:

No.

An extradition [proceeding] is sui generis. It is not a criminal proceeding which will call into operation all
the rights of an accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

It is significant to note that Section 6 of PD 1069, our Extradition Law, uses the word "immediate" to
qualify the arrest of the accused. This qualification would be rendered nugatory by setting for hearing
the issuance of the arrest warrant. Hearing entails sending notices to the opposing parties, receiving
facts and arguments from them, and giving them time to prepare and present such facts and arguments.
Arrest subsequent to a hearing can no longer be considered "immediate." The law could not have
intended the word as a mere superfluity but, on the whole, as a means of imparting a sense of urgency
and swiftness in the determination of whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.