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 the United States v. Purganan
GR No. 148571, Sept. 24, 2002
FACTS:
In accordance to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the United States Government, through diplomatic channels, sent to the Philippine Government Note Verbale an extradition request of Mark B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo. Upon receipt of the Notes and documents, the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate action, pursuant to Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1069, also known as the Extradition Law. Govt. of the United States v. Purganan
Jimenez then sought and was granted a TRO to prohibit the DOJ from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition which was later on assailed by the SOJ. The Court initially dismissed the petition, but later on reverse its decision when it filed its Motion for Reconsideration and held that private respondent was bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process.
On May 18, 2001, the Government of the United States of America, represented by the Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC, the appropriate Petition for Extradition. In order to prevent the flight of Jimenez, the Petition prayed for the issuance of an order for his immediate arrest pursuant to Section 6 of PD No. 1069. Govt. of the United States v. Purganan
Respondent Jimenez then filed an Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion, praying for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. The RTC granted the Motion of Jimenez and set a date for hearing. When the arrest warrant was issued, he was granted bail for his temporary liberty in the amount of one million pesos in cash.
Read: Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manila
ISSUES:
Both parties cite Section 6 of PD 1069 in support of their arguments, to wit:
When it requires a speedy action on the petition, the trial court is not expected to make an exhaustive determination to ferret out the true and actual situation, immediately upon the filing of the petition. From the knowledge and the material then available to it, the court is expected merely to get a good first impression -- a prima facie finding -- sufficient to make a speedy initial determination as regards the arrest and detention of the accused. Govt. of the United States v. Purganan
Read: Marcos v. Manglapus
On the basis also of the Constitution, Section 2 Article III does not require a notice or a hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The Constitution only requires examination under oath or affirmation of complaints and the witnesses they may produce. There is no requirement to notify and hear the accused before the issuance of warrants of arrest. The judges merely determine personally the probability, not the certainty of guilt of an accused.
2. No, he's not entitled to post bail. Extradition case is different from ordinary criminal proceedings. Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution, as well as Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, applies only when a person has been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply to extradition proceedings, because extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal. Jimenez should apply for bail before the courts trying the criminal cases against him, not before the extradition court. Govt. of the United States v. Purganan
3. There is no violation of his right to due process. Potential extraditees are entitled to the rights to due process and to fundamental fairness. Due process does not always call for a prior opportunity to be heard. A subsequent opportunity is sufficient due to the flight risk involved. Indeed, available during the hearings on the petition and the answer is the full chance to be heard and to enjoy fundamental fairness that is compatible with the summary nature of extradition.
To sum all up, extradition proceedings should be conducted with all deliberate speed to determine compliance with the Extradition Treaty and Law; and, while safeguarding basic individual rights, to avoid the legalistic contortions, delays and technicalities that may negate that purpose. Govt. of the United States v. Purganan
READ FULL TEXT
GR No. 148571, Sept. 24, 2002
FACTS:
In accordance to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the United States Government, through diplomatic channels, sent to the Philippine Government Note Verbale an extradition request of Mark B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo. Upon receipt of the Notes and documents, the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate action, pursuant to Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1069, also known as the Extradition Law. Govt. of the United States v. Purganan
Jimenez then sought and was granted a TRO to prohibit the DOJ from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition which was later on assailed by the SOJ. The Court initially dismissed the petition, but later on reverse its decision when it filed its Motion for Reconsideration and held that private respondent was bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process.
On May 18, 2001, the Government of the United States of America, represented by the Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC, the appropriate Petition for Extradition. In order to prevent the flight of Jimenez, the Petition prayed for the issuance of an order for his immediate arrest pursuant to Section 6 of PD No. 1069. Govt. of the United States v. Purganan
Respondent Jimenez then filed an Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion, praying for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. The RTC granted the Motion of Jimenez and set a date for hearing. When the arrest warrant was issued, he was granted bail for his temporary liberty in the amount of one million pesos in cash.
Read: Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manila
ISSUES:
- Whether or not the respondent entitled to notice and hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
- Whether or not the respondent entitled to bail.
- Whether or not there is a violation of due process of law.
Both parties cite Section 6 of PD 1069 in support of their arguments, to wit:
SEC. 6. Issuance of Summons; Temporary Arrest; Hearing, Service of Notices. (1) Immediately upon receipt of the petition, the presiding judge of the court shall, as soon as practicable, summon the accused to appear and to answer the petition on the day and hour fixed in the order. [H]e may issue a warrant for the immediate arrest of the accused which may be served any where within the Philippines if it appears to the presiding judge that the immediate arrest and temporary detention of the accused will best serve the ends of justice. Upon receipt of the answer, or should the accused after having received the summons fail to answer within the time fixed, the presiding judge shall hear the case or set another date for the hearing thereof.1. No. On the basis of the Extradition Law, the word immediate was used to qualify the arrest of the accused. This qualification would be rendered nugatory by setting for hearing the issuance of the arrest warrant. Hearing entails sending notices to the opposing parties, receiving facts and arguments from them, and giving them time to prepare and present such facts and arguments.
(2) The order and notice as well as a copy of the warrant of arrest, if issued, shall be promptly served each upon the accused and the attorney having charge of the case. Govt. of the United States v. Purganan
When it requires a speedy action on the petition, the trial court is not expected to make an exhaustive determination to ferret out the true and actual situation, immediately upon the filing of the petition. From the knowledge and the material then available to it, the court is expected merely to get a good first impression -- a prima facie finding -- sufficient to make a speedy initial determination as regards the arrest and detention of the accused. Govt. of the United States v. Purganan
Read: Marcos v. Manglapus
On the basis also of the Constitution, Section 2 Article III does not require a notice or a hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The Constitution only requires examination under oath or affirmation of complaints and the witnesses they may produce. There is no requirement to notify and hear the accused before the issuance of warrants of arrest. The judges merely determine personally the probability, not the certainty of guilt of an accused.
2. No, he's not entitled to post bail. Extradition case is different from ordinary criminal proceedings. Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution, as well as Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, applies only when a person has been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply to extradition proceedings, because extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal. Jimenez should apply for bail before the courts trying the criminal cases against him, not before the extradition court. Govt. of the United States v. Purganan
3. There is no violation of his right to due process. Potential extraditees are entitled to the rights to due process and to fundamental fairness. Due process does not always call for a prior opportunity to be heard. A subsequent opportunity is sufficient due to the flight risk involved. Indeed, available during the hearings on the petition and the answer is the full chance to be heard and to enjoy fundamental fairness that is compatible with the summary nature of extradition.
To sum all up, extradition proceedings should be conducted with all deliberate speed to determine compliance with the Extradition Treaty and Law; and, while safeguarding basic individual rights, to avoid the legalistic contortions, delays and technicalities that may negate that purpose. Govt. of the United States v. Purganan
READ FULL TEXT
Comments
Post a Comment