Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor found a prima
Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
GR NO. 153675, APRIL 19, 2007
GR NO. 153675, APRIL 19, 2007
FACTS:
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.
Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
He also faces seven (7) counts of the offense of conspiracy to defraud, penalized by the common law of Hong Kong. Warrants of arrest were issued against him.
If convicted, he faces a jail term of seven (7) to fourteen (14) years for each charge.
Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
He also faces seven (7) counts of the offense of conspiracy to defraud, penalized by the common law of Hong Kong. Warrants of arrest were issued against him.
If convicted, he faces a jail term of seven (7) to fourteen (14) years for each charge.
Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
On September 13, 1999, the DOJ received from the Hong Kong Department of Justice a request for the provisional arrest of private respondent.
The RTC issued an Order of Arrest against private respondent.
Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
That same day, the NBI agents arrested and detained him.
The RTC issued an Order of Arrest against private respondent.
Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
That same day, the NBI agents arrested and detained him.
Private respondent filed a petition for bail which was opposed by petitioner.
After hearing, Judge Bernardo, Jr. issued an Order denying the petition for bail, holding that there is no Philippine law granting bail in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high "flight risk." Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
Judge Bernardo, Jr. inhibited himself from further hearing the case, it was then raffled off to Branch 8 presided by respondent judge.
Read: Feliciano vs. Pasicolan
Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order denying his application for bail and this was granted by respondent judge.Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
After hearing, Judge Bernardo, Jr. issued an Order denying the petition for bail, holding that there is no Philippine law granting bail in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high "flight risk." Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
Judge Bernardo, Jr. inhibited himself from further hearing the case, it was then raffled off to Branch 8 presided by respondent judge.
Read: Feliciano vs. Pasicolan
Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order denying his application for bail and this was granted by respondent judge.Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
Petitioner filed an urgent motion to vacate the above Order, but it was denied by respondent judge.
Hence, the instant petition.
Hence, the instant petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as there is no provision in the Constitution granting bail to a potential extraditee.
HELD:
No. Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
Bearing in mind the purpose of extradition proceedings, the premise behind the issuance of the arrest warrant and the "temporary detention" is the possibility of flight of the potential extraditee.
This is based on the assumption that such extraditee is a fugitive from justice.
Given the foregoing, the prospective extraditee thus bears the onus probandi of showing that he or she is not a flight risk and should be granted bail.
Bearing in mind the purpose of extradition proceedings, the premise behind the issuance of the arrest warrant and the "temporary detention" is the possibility of flight of the potential extraditee.
This is based on the assumption that such extraditee is a fugitive from justice.
Given the foregoing, the prospective extraditee thus bears the onus probandi of showing that he or she is not a flight risk and should be granted bail.
The Philippines, along with the other members of the family of nations, committed to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person.
Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
Clearly, the right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and protection of human rights.
Under these treaties, the presumption lies in favor of human liberty.
Thus, the Philippines should see to it that the right to liberty of every individual is not impaired.
Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
Clearly, the right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and protection of human rights.
Under these treaties, the presumption lies in favor of human liberty.
Thus, the Philippines should see to it that the right to liberty of every individual is not impaired.
Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
Section 2(a) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law) defines "extradition" as,
the removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting state or government to hold him in connection with any criminal investigation directed against him or the execution of a penalty imposed on him under the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or government.
Extradition is not a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the potential extraditee.
Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
Nor is it a full-blown civil action, but one that is merely administrative in character.
Its object is to prevent the escape of a person accused or convicted of a crime and to secure his return to the state from which he fled, for the purpose of trial or punishment.
It does not necessarily mean that in keeping with its treaty obligations, the Philippines should diminish a potential extraditee’s rights to life, liberty, and due process.
More so, where these rights are guaranteed, not only by our Constitution, but also by international conventions, to which the Philippines is a party.
Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
We should not, therefore, deprive an extraditee of his right to apply for bail, provided that a certain standard for the grant is satisfactorily met.
There is no showing that private respondent presented evidence to show that he is not a flight risk.
Consequently, this case should be remanded to the trial court to determine whether private respondent may be granted bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence."
Consequently, this case should be remanded to the trial court to determine whether private respondent may be granted bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence."
The time-honored principle of pacta sunt servanda demands that the Philippines honor its obligations under the Extradition Treaty it entered into with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
Failure to comply with these obligations is a setback in our foreign relations and defeats the purpose of extradition.
However, it does not necessarily mean that in keeping with its treaty obligations, the Philippines should diminish a potential extraditee’s rights to life, liberty, and due process.
More so, where these rights are guaranteed, not only by our Constitution, but also by international conventions, to which the Philippines is a party.
This Court should not, therefore, deprive an extraditee of his right to apply for bail, provided that a certain standard for the grant is satisfactorily met.
Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
Failure to comply with these obligations is a setback in our foreign relations and defeats the purpose of extradition.
However, it does not necessarily mean that in keeping with its treaty obligations, the Philippines should diminish a potential extraditee’s rights to life, liberty, and due process.
More so, where these rights are guaranteed, not only by our Constitution, but also by international conventions, to which the Philippines is a party.
This Court should not, therefore, deprive an extraditee of his right to apply for bail, provided that a certain standard for the grant is satisfactorily met.
Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard of proof required in granting or denying bail can neither be the proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the standard of proof of preponderance of evidence in civil cases.
Read: Tucay vs. Domagas
While administrative in character, the standard of substantial evidence used in administrative cases cannot likewise apply given the object of extradition law which is to prevent the prospective extraditee from fleeing our jurisdiction.
Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
In his Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new standard which he termed "clear and convincing evidence" should be used in granting bail in extradition cases.
According to him, this standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence.
The potential extraditee must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court.
In this case, there is no showing that private respondent presented evidence to show that he is not a flight risk.
Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
Consequently, this case should be remanded to the trial court to determine whether private respondent may be granted bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence."
Read: Tucay vs. Domagas
While administrative in character, the standard of substantial evidence used in administrative cases cannot likewise apply given the object of extradition law which is to prevent the prospective extraditee from fleeing our jurisdiction.
Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
In his Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new standard which he termed "clear and convincing evidence" should be used in granting bail in extradition cases.
According to him, this standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence.
The potential extraditee must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court.
In this case, there is no showing that private respondent presented evidence to show that he is not a flight risk.
Govt. of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Olalia
Consequently, this case should be remanded to the trial court to determine whether private respondent may be granted bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence."