View full case

JUSTICE SERAFIN R. CUEVAS v. JUAN ANTONIO MUÑOZ

FACTS:

On August 23, 1997, a Hong Kong Magistrate's Court issued a warrant for the arrest of respondent Juan Antonio Muñoz for charges of accepting an advantage as an agent and conspiracy to defraud. The Philippine Department of Justice received a request for the provisional arrest of the respondent from the Hong Kong Department of Justice and forwarded it to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The NBI filed an application for the respondent's provisional arrest with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, which granted the application and issued an Order of Arrest on September 20, 1999. The respondent was then arrested on September 23, 1999, and is currently detained at the NBI detention cell. The respondent questioned the validity of the Order of Arrest by filing a petition with the Court of Appeals, which declared the Order null and void. The petitioner, as the Secretary of the Department of Justice, filed a petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision.

The case involves the extradition of the respondent, who is wanted in Hong Kong for charges of accepting an advantage as an agent and conspiracy to defraud. The petitioner argues that the offense of accepting an advantage as an agent is not punishable under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The trial court has yet to rule on the extraditability of the offenses. The petitioner asserts that there was urgency for the provisional arrest of the respondent due to the nature of the offense and the potential for the respondent to flee. On the other hand, the respondent claims that he did not flee or hide during previous investigations and that his mother's impending death prevented him from leaving the country. However, the respondent's mother passed away after his provisional arrest. The Philippine Department of Justice received a request for surrender or extradition from the Hong Kong Department of Justice twelve days after the respondent's provisional arrest.

The petitioner argues that the provisional arrest period of 45 days, as provided in Article 11(3) of the RP-Hong Kong Extradition Agreement, has amended the 20-day period stated in Section 20(d) of P.D. No. 1069. However, this argument becomes moot as the actual request for the respondent's extradition was received twelve days after his arrest. The respondent also contends that his incarceration cannot last beyond the 20-day period without a petition for extradition being filed in court.

ISSUES:

  1. Was there urgency in the request for the provisional arrest of respondent Muñoz?

  2. Does the RP-Hong Kong Extradition Agreement which provides for a forty-five (45) day period for provisional arrest amend the twenty (20) day period under Section 20(d) of Presidential Decree No. 1069?

  3. Are the unauthenticated and facsimile copies of the request for provisional arrest and accompanying documents valid for the issuance of the Order of Arrest?

  4. Was there a lack of factual and legal bases in the determination of probable cause for the issuance of the Order of Arrest?

  5. Does the principle of dual criminality apply to this case, particularly concerning the offenses charged against the respondent in Hong Kong?

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled that there was indeed urgency in the request for the provisional arrest due to the nature of the offenses and the likelihood of the respondent fleeing.

  2. The issue of the 45-day versus 20-day period for provisional arrest was rendered moot as the formal request for the extradition was received twelve days after the provisional arrest.

  3. The Supreme Court found that the request for provisional arrest and accompanying documents did not need to be authenticated. The urgency and practicalities of provisional arrest justify using facsimile copies.

  4. There was sufficient factual and legal bases for the determination of probable cause, as the judge made a personal determination based on the documents provided.

  5. Regarding the principle of dual criminality, the Supreme Court clarified that it was premature for the Court of Appeals to decide on the extraditability of the offenses since it was within the jurisdiction of the trial court to make that determination.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Urgency in Provisional Arrest: Urgency justifies provisional arrest when there is a high risk of flight or destruction of evidence by the accused.

  2. Treaty Superseding Domestic Law: International agreements may have provisions that supersede domestic laws in certain contexts, such as the period allowed for provisional arrest.

  3. Non-requirement of Authentication in Provisional Arrest: Requests for provisional arrest and accompanying documents do not need to be authenticated as provisional arrest aims for expediency to prevent the suspect from fleeing.

  4. Probable Cause Determination: Probable cause for arrest must be personally determined by the judge based on submitted documents and does not necessarily require a personal interview with the complainant or witnesses.

  5. Dual Criminality in Extradition: The trial court is vested with jurisdiction to consider the applicability of the principle of dual criminality in determining the extraditability of offenses.