GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Represented by the

Philippine Department of Justice,  vs. 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
PANGANIBAN, J.:

FACTS:

1. Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the US Government, through

diplomatic channels, sent to the Philippine Government Note Verbale and
accompanied by duly authenticated documents requesting the extradition of Mark
B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo.

2. Upon receipt of the Notes and documents, the DFA secretary transmitted them to
SOJ for appropriate action, pursuant to Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No.
1069, also known as the Extradition Law.

3. Upon learning of the request for his extradition, Jimenez sought and was granted
a TRO by the RTC which prohibited the DOJ from filing with the RTC a petition
for his extradition. The validity of the TRO was, however, assailed by the SOJ in
a Petition before this Court in another case. Initially, the Court -- by a vote of 9-6
-- dismissed the Petition which later on upon acting acting on the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by the SOJ, reconsidered and reversed its earlier Decision.
It held that private respondent was bereft of the right to notice and hearing during
the evaluation stage of the extradition process. This Resolution has become final
and executory.

4. Finding no more legal obstacle, the US Government, represented by the

Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC, the appropriate Petition for Extradition. The
Petition alleged, inter alia, that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest warrant
issued by the United States District Court. In order to prevent the flight of
Jimenez, the Petition prayed for the issuance of an order for his "immediate
arrest" pursuant to Section 6 of PD No. 1069.

5. 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.
6. In its assailed May 23, 2001 Order, the RTC granted the Motion of Jimenez and
set the case for hearing. In that hearing, petitioner manifested its reservations on
the procedure adopted by the trial court allowing the accused in an extradition
case to be heard prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

7. After the hearing, Jimenez sought an alternative prayer: that in case a warrant
should issue, he be allowed to post bail. The alternative prayer of Jimenez was
also set for hearing.

8. Thereafter, the court issued an order directing the issuance of a warrant for his
arrest and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at one million pesos in cash.  After
he had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond, Jimenez
was granted provisional liberty.

ISSUE:
Whether, in extradition proceedings, prospective extraditees are entitled to notice
and hearing before warrants for their arrest can be issued?

Whether they are entitled to the right to bail and provisional liberty while the
extradition proceedings are pending?

RULING:
In general, the answer to these two novel questions by the SC is "No."

The negative decision of SC in the first issue is discussed in two points - on the
basis of the Extradition Law and on the basis of constitution.

In the 1st issue (right to notice and hearing)

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. Arrest subsequent to a hearing can no longer be considered
"immediate." By using the phrase "if it appears," the law further conveys that
accuracy is not as important as speed at such early stage. From the knowledge
and the material then available to it, the court is expected merely to get a good first
impression -- a prima facie finding -- sufficient to make a speedy initial determination
as regards the arrest and detention of the accused.
On the Basis of the Constitution, to determine probable cause for the issuance of
arrest warrants, the Constitution itself requires only the examination -- under oath
or affirmation -- of complainants and the witnesses they may produce. There is no
requirement to notify and hear the accused before the issuance of warrants of
arrest.

Upon receipt of a petition for extradition and its supporting documents, the judge
must study them and make, as soon as possible, a prima facie finding
If the presence of a prima facie case is determined [whether (a) they are sufficient in
form and substance, (b) they show compliance with the Extradition Treaty and Law, and (c)
the person sought is extraditable] , then the magistrate must immediately issue a
warrant for the arrest of the extraditee, who is at the same time summoned to
answer the petition and to appear at scheduled summary hearings. Prior to the
issuance of the warrant, the judge must not inform or notify the potential extraditee
of the pendency of the petition, lest the latter be given the opportunity to escape and
frustrate the proceedings.

In the second issue (right to bail while pending proceeding)

The court clarified that extradition is different from ordinary criminal proceedings and
thus, the constitutional provision on bail as well as Section 4 of Rule 114 of the
Rules of Court, is not applicable in this extradition.

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.

Contrary to his contention, his detention prior to the conclusion of the extradition
proceedings DOES NOT amount to a violation of his right to due process. The court
reiterate the familiar doctrine that the essence of due process is the opportunity to
be heard  but this doctrine does not always call for a prior opportunity to be
heard. Where the circumstances -- such as those present in an extradition case --
call for it, a subsequent opportunity to be heard is enough.  In the present case,
respondent will be given full opportunity to be heard subsequently, when the
extradition court hears the Petition for Extradition. Hence, there is no violation of his
right to due process and fundamental fairness.
However, ffter a potential extraditee has been arrested or placed under the custody
of the law, bail may be applied for and granted as an EXCEPTION, only upon a
clear and convincing showing
(1) that, once granted bail, the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to the
community; and
(2) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances  including,
as a matter of reciprocity, those cited by the highest court in the requesting
state when it grants provisional liberty in extradition cases therein.