FACTS:

The case involves the extradition of Juan Antonio Munoz from the Philippines to Hong Kong. The request for extradition was based on charges of conspiracy to defraud and accepting an advantage as an agent. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially granted the request for extradition, but the Court of Appeals (CA) later amended the decision, excluding the charge of accepting an advantage as an agent. The case involves the gold loans/swaps transactions between the Central Bank of the Philippines (CBP) and the Mocatta Group, where Munoz, as the head of the Treasury Department of CBP, was involved. Payments were made to a Sundry Creditors Account, allegedly for the personal benefit of Munoz and other individuals. Munoz disputes these allegations.

The Central Bank executed gold loan/swap agreements with Mocatta London, with Munoz signing on behalf of the Central Bank. Mocatta London later requested that its accreditation be transferred to Standard Chartered Bank (SCB), which was approved by the Monetary Board. Munoz, as Head of Treasury, was not involved in the details of the work done by other directors or deputy directors. Criminal cases were filed against Munoz in Hong Kong regarding the gold loan/swap agreements with Mocatta London. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) sent a note to the Philippine Consulate General in Hong Kong to inquire about the proper agency in the Philippine Government to handle a request for extradition. The Department of Justice (DOJ) received the request for provisional arrest and eventually filed a petition for the surrender of Munoz to HKSAR. The RTC initially denied the petition for bail but later granted it after reconsideration. The DOJ appealed the granting of bail.

The DOJ filed a petition with the Court to challenge the grant of bail to Munoz, citing that the extradition law does not provide for bail. However, the Court held that the extradition law does not prohibit an extraditee from filing a motion for bail as it is a right to due process under the Constitution. The Court also explained that the standard of due process in extradition proceedings is different from criminal proceedings, as there is no presumption of innocence and the purpose of the arrest warrant and "temporary detention" is to prevent the potential extraditee from fleeing. The Court emphasized that although the Philippines has an obligation to honor its extradition treaty with HKSAR, the rights of a potential extraditee to life, liberty, and due process should not be diminished, as guaranteed by the Constitution and international conventions.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the prospective extraditee is entitled to apply for bail in extradition proceedings.

2. What standard of proof should be used in granting or denying bail in extradition cases.

3. The sole issue raised by the HKSAR relates to the propriety of the CA's conclusion that the crime of accepting an advantage as an agent did not comply with the double criminality rule.

4. Whether the crime of accepting an advantage as an agent under Section 9(1)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) in Hong Kong has an equivalent offense in the Philippines.

5. Whether Munoz should be charged as a public servant or as a regular agent in relation to the transactions entered into by and on behalf of the Central Bank of the Philippines.

6. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of failure to comply with the conciliation/mediation requirement.

7. Whether or not the petitioner is exempted from the requirement of prior conciliation/mediation.

RULING:

1. The prospective extraditee is entitled to apply for bail in extradition proceedings, provided that he or she can show by "clear and convincing evidence" that he or she is not a flight risk and will comply with all orders and processes of the extradition court.

2. The standard of proof in granting or denying bail in extradition cases is the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, which is lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence.

3. Upon thorough consideration, the court denies the petition for review. The court affirmed the CA's conclusion that the crime of accepting an advantage as an agent did not comply with the double criminality rule. The court explained that for the purpose of extradition, the requesting state must establish that the offenses charged are criminal in both the requesting state and the requested state (double criminality rule). It was disputed whether the crime of accepting an advantage as an agent was also punished as a crime in the Philippines. As a result, the court held that the HKSAR failed to establish the sixth element required for extradition.

4. The crime of accepting an advantage as an agent under Section 9(1)(a) of the POBO does not have an equivalent offense in the Philippines. The Hong Kong Court of Appeal (CA) reversed its earlier determination and agreed with Munoz's argument that Section 9(1)(a) of the POBO only applies to private individuals. The CA further concluded that the crime did not have an equivalent in the Philippines because there was no law defining and punishing the unauthorized giving and receiving of benefits in the private sector.

5. Munoz should be charged as a public servant or employee of the Philippine Government in relation to the transactions entered into by and on behalf of the Central Bank of the Philippines. The offenses charged against him in Hong Kong, however, deal with private sector bribery. Thus, the conditions for the application of the double criminality rule are not met. Consequently, the crime of accepting an advantage as an agent must be dropped from the request for extradition, and Munoz should only be proceeded against for the seven counts of conspiracy to defraud.

6. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition on the ground of failure to comply with the conciliation/mediation requirement.

7. The petitioner is not exempted from the requirement of prior conciliation/mediation.

PRINCIPLES:

• The right to apply for bail in extradition proceedings is a constitutional right under the right to due process.

• The standard of due process in extradition proceedings is not the same as in criminal proceedings and should be based on the purpose of preventing flight of the potential extraditee.

• The Philippines is obligated to honor its obligations under extradition treaties, but this should not diminish the rights of the potential extraditee to life, liberty, and due process.

• The standard of proof in granting or denying bail in extradition cases is "clear and convincing evidence," which is lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence.

• Extradition is not part of customary international law and is only required when obliged by treaty. The right to request extradition arises from a treaty between the requesting state and the requested state.

• The RP-HK Agreement is an extradition treaty between the Philippines and Hong Kong, which governs the rights and obligations of the parties in handling extradition requests.

• The elements for extradition include the existence of an extradition treaty, pending criminal charges, extraditable crimes, identity of the accused, establishment of probable cause, and compliance with the double criminality rule.

• The double criminality rule requires that the offense must be criminal under the laws of both the requesting state and the requested state.

• Double criminality rule - The requested state is not obligated to surrender a person for extradition if its laws do not regard the conduct covered by the request for extradition as criminal.

• Principle of specialty - Under the RP-HK Agreement, the requested state shall proceed against the extradited person only for the offenses listed in the extradition request.

• Failure to comply with the conciliation/mediation requirement is a ground for dismissing a petition.

• The requirement of prior conciliation/mediation may not be exempted in certain circumstances.