2S PIL Case Digests

Extradition #09
AUTHOR
TOPIC

CASE EDUARDO TOLENTINO RODRIGUEZ & IMELDA GENER RODRIGUEZ, 157977

GR NO
TITLE petitioners, vs. HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC MANILA
BRANCH 17, respondent
TICKLER spouses granted bail, voluntary extradition, denied, warrant of DATE 27 February 2006
arrest
DOCTRINE In the Purganan case, the Court held that a prospective extraditee is not entitled to notice and hearing
before the issuance of a warrant of arrest, because notifying him before his arrest only tips him of his
pending arrest. But this is for cases pending the issuance of a warrant of arrest, not in a cancellation of
a bail that had been issued after determination that the extraditee is a no- flight risk.

Revocation of bail after the grounds for the grant of bail have been fulfilled as in the latter case without
notice and hearing is grave abuse of discretion.

FACTS The US government filed a petition for the extradition of petitioner spouses. After petitioner’s arrest, they
applied for bail which the trial court granted. They posted a cash bond of P 1 million each.

The US government moved for reconsideration of a grant but was denied. The US government then filed
a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, who directed the trial court to resolve the matter subject
to the ruling in US v. Purganan.

The trial court, without prior notice and hearing, cancelled the cash bond and ordered the issuance of a
warrant of arrest. Hence, petitioner’s very urgent motion for reconsideration of the cancellation of their
bail.

Petitioners: Their bail cannot be cancelled without due process of law and the directive of the Supreme
Court did not authorize cancellation of their bail. Their situation falls under the exception of the general
rule of no-bail in offering voluntary extradition.

Respondent: Prior notice and hearing are not required to cancel petitioner’s bail and issuance of warrant
of arrest ex parte is not a violation of the due process clause. It would defeat the purpose since it would
warn respondents and even encourage them to flee.

ISSUE/S Whether a prospective extradite is entitled to notice and hearing before the cancellation of his or
her bail.

RULING/S The issue is moot as to Eduardo, since he is already in the U.S.

In the Purganan case, the Court held that a prospective extraditee is not entitled to notice and hearing
before the issuance of a warrant of arrest, because notifying him before his arrest only tips him of his
pending arrest. But this is for cases pending the issuance of a warrant of arrest, not in a cancellation of
a bail that had been issued after determination that the extraditee is a no- flight risk.

A prospective extradite is arrested and detained to avoid his flight from justice. The extradite has the
burden of showing he will not flee once bail is granted. If after arrest, he is found to be a no-flight risk, the
court grants him bail. Such grant presupposes presentation of evidence proving her right to bail, that one
is no flight risk, and the trial court has exercised sound discretion and determined that co-petitioner is
entitled to provisional release.

2S [AY 2020-2021]
San Beda University – College of Law
 2S PIL Case Digests
Petitioner, who has offered to go on voluntary extradition and paid a cash bond of P 1 million, with her
husband already in the US, should be granted continued temporary liberty on bail which should not be
revoked without being given notice and hearing.

Bail may be granted to a possible extraditee only upon a clear and convincing showing (1) that he
will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community, and (2) that there exist special, humanitarian
and compelling circumstances.

The immediate cancellation of bail is contrary to the ruling of Purganan. Considering that she has not been
shown to be a flight risk nor a danger to the community, she is entitled to notice and hearing before her
bail could be cancelled. The immediate cancellation without prior notice and hearing violated her right to
due process.

NOTES

2S [AY 2020-2021]
San Beda University – College of Law