[ Government of Hongkong v.

Munoz ]
G.R. No. 207342, August 16, 2016
Rule 114: Bail

Doctrine of the Case:

Grant of Bail - 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.

Double criminality rule – the extraditable offense must be criminal under the laws of both the
requesting and the requested states," which means that the requested state comes under no
obligation to surrender the person if its laws do not regard the conduct covered by the request for
extradition as criminal

Facts of the Case:

1. Private respondent Muñoz was charged before the Hong Kong Court with three (3) counts of
the offense of “accepting an advantage as agent,” in violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of the
Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201 of Hong Kong.
2. Petitioner Hong Kong Special Administrative Region filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for
the extradition of private respondent.
3. This case is the third in the trilogy of cases dealing with respondent’s provisional arrest as an
extraditee, and the 2007 case which resolved the question of Muñoz's right to bail as a potential
extraditee. Both rulings dealt with and resolved incidents arising during the process of having
Munoz extradited to Hong Kong under and pursuant to the RP-HK Agreement.

RTC Ruling: The trial court ruled on the main case of extradition by holding that the extradition
request sufficiently complied with the RP-HK Agreement and Presidential Decree No. 1069.

CA Ruling: The appellate court affirmed the RTC's conclusion that the crimes of conspiracy to
defraud and accepting an advantage as an agent were extraditable offenses.

Issue:
Whether or not the extradition request of the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region (HKSAR) sufficiently complied with the RP-HK Agreement and Presidential Decree No.
1069 (Philippine Extradition Law).
Ruling of the Court:

NO. Under the double criminality rule, the extraditable offense must be criminal under the laws of
both the requesting and the requested states," which means that the requested state comes under
no obligation to surrender the person if its laws do not regard the conduct covered by the request
for extradition as criminal.

In the case at bar, the crime of accepting an advantage as an agent did not have an equivalent in
this jurisdiction. Considering that the transactions were entered into by and in behalf of the Central
Bank of the Philippines, Munoz should be charged for the offenses as a public servant or employee
of the Philippine Government. Yet, because the offense of accepting an advantage as an agent
charged against him in the HKSAR is one that deals with private sector bribery, the conditions for
the application of the double criminality rule are obviously not met. Accordingly, the crime of
accepting an advantage as an agent must be dropped from the request for extradition.

In Enrile vs Sandiganbayan, the court held:

That the national commitment to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the
worth and dignity of every person has authorized the grant of bail not only to those charged
in criminal proceedings but also to extraditees.

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.