View full case

GOVERNMENT OF US v. GUILLERMO G. PURGANAN

FACTS:

This case involves the Philippine government's extradition proceedings against Mark B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo, upon the request of the United States Government pursuant to the RP-US Extradition Treaty. On June 16, 1999, the U.S. Government, through diplomatic channels and supplemented by additional notes, requested the extradition of Jimenez on charges including conspiracy to defraud, tax evasion, wire fraud, false statements, and illegal campaign contributions. Upon receiving these documents, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs forwarded them to the Secretary of Justice, who then pursued the extradition process.

Jimenez sought and was granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, preventing the Department of Justice (DOJ) from filing for his extradition. However, the Supreme Court, in GR No. 139465 (Secretary of Justice v. Ralph C. Lantion), reversed its initial decision and determined that Jimenez had no right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. Following this decision, the DOJ formally filed the petition for Jimenez's extradition, leading to its docketing as Extradition Case No. 01192061.

The RTC initially set a hearing for the DOJ's application for Jimenez's arrest and later issued a warrant for his arrest while also granting him bail at one million pesos, provided he surrendered his passport. Consequently, Jimenez was granted provisional liberty after complying with these requirements. This led to the current Petition for Certiorari challenging the RTC's orders on the grounds that the procedure allowing a hearing before issuing an arrest warrant was inappropriate and that granting bail in extradition proceedings was erroneous. The Petition seeks to lift the bail Order, cancel the bond, and take Jimenez into legal custody.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Jimenez is entitled to a notice and hearing before a warrant for his arrest can be issued.

  2. Whether he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending.

RULING:

  1. Notice and Hearing Before Issuance of Warrant of Arrest

    • Ruling The Supreme Court ruled that there is no requirement for notice and hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest in extradition proceedings. The law emphasizes immediate arrest to prevent the accused from escaping, which is consistent with the urgency required in extradition cases.

  2. Entitlement to Bail

    • Ruling The Supreme Court held that the right to bail under the Philippine Constitution applies only to criminal proceedings and does not automatically extend to extradition cases. However, bail in extradition cases may be granted as an exception, but only upon a clear and convincing showing that the applicant is not a flight risk or danger to the community, and that there exist special, humanitarian, and compelling circumstances.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Extradition aims to suppress crime Extradition treaties facilitate the arrest and transfer of fugitives to uphold justice and suppress crime effectively.

  • Trust in the legal system of the requesting state By signing extradition treaties, states express mutual trust in each other's legal systems and due process protections.

  • Proceedings are sui generis Extradition proceedings are unique and not equivalent to criminal proceedings. They primarily focus on complying with treaty terms rather than determining guilt or innocence.

  • Good faith compliance States must comply with extradition treaties in good faith, reflecting mutual obligations and reciprocity.

  • Flight risk presumption Persons sought for extradition are presumed to be flight risks, reinforcing the need for immediate and secure detention.

  • Due process in extradition Full due process in extradition cases includes subsequent opportunities to be heard rather than prior notice, considering the flight risk.

  • Conditional bail in extradition Bail may be granted in extradition cases only under exceptional circumstances and must be convincingly justified by the applicant.

  • Summary nature of extradition cases Emphasis on speedy and efficient resolution of extradition cases to maintain international cooperation and compliance with treaty obligations.