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
Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion [Reconsideration]
GR No. 139465 October 17, 2000
GR No. 139465 October 17, 2000
FACTS:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition in Secretary of Justice v. Lantion (GR 139465, Jan. 18, 2000) and ordered the petitioner to furnish private respondent copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers and to grant him a reasonable period within which to file his comment with supporting evidence. Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion
On February 3, 2000, petitioner assailed, on his Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, that the Court failed to look into the important facts and points with regards to extradition law:
I. There is a substantial difference between an evaluation process antecedent to the filing of an extradition petition in court and a preliminary investigation.
II. Absence of notice and hearing during the evaluation process will not result in a denial of fundamental fairness
III. In the evaluation process, instituting a notice and hearing requirement satisfies no higher objective. Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion
IV. The deliberate omission of the notice and hearing requirement in the Philippine Extradition Law is intended to prevent flight.
V. There is a need to balance the interest between the discretionary powers of government and the rights of an individual.
VI. The instances cited in the assailed majority decision when the twin rights of notice and hearing may be dispensed with in this case results in a non sequitur conclusion.
VII. Jimenez is not placed in imminent danger of arrest by the Executive Branch necessitating notice and hearing.
VIII. By instituting a 'proceeding' not contemplated by PD No. 1069, the Supreme Court has encroached upon the constitutional boundaries separating it from the other two co-equal branches of government. Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion
IX. Bail is not a matter of right in proceedings leading to extradition or in extradition proceedings."
Read: Govt. of the United States v. Purganan
ISSUES:
Whether or not private respondent is denied with due process of law to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion
HELD:
The motion is granted and reversed the case at bar held in Secretary of Justice v. Lantion (GR 139465, Jan. 18, 2000).
Read: Secretary of Justice v. Lantion
The constitutional right of an extraditee as granted by the Bill of Rights cannot be invoked when the extradition documents are still in the evaluation stage. An extradition proceeding is sui generis. It is not a criminal proceeding. The process of extradition does not involve the determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused.
There is also no provision in the RP-US Extradition Treaty and in P.D. No. 1069 that an extraditee will be given the privilege to demand copies of documents for extradition and to give comments while the request is still undergoing evaluation. The Court cannot add, alter or amend provision just to give the respondent any rights when it is not written in the treaty per se. The treaty is interpreted as constitutional before it was adopted and given the force of law in the country. The treaty must also be interpreted in light of its object and purpose, thus, justice must be served without any delay when suppression of crime is the main concern of the requesting state and the state where the criminal may have escaped. Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion
READ FULL TEXT
Read: Govt. of the United States v. Purganan
ISSUES:
Whether or not private respondent is denied with due process of law to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion
HELD:
The motion is granted and reversed the case at bar held in Secretary of Justice v. Lantion (GR 139465, Jan. 18, 2000).
Read: Secretary of Justice v. Lantion
The constitutional right of an extraditee as granted by the Bill of Rights cannot be invoked when the extradition documents are still in the evaluation stage. An extradition proceeding is sui generis. It is not a criminal proceeding. The process of extradition does not involve the determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused.
There is also no provision in the RP-US Extradition Treaty and in P.D. No. 1069 that an extraditee will be given the privilege to demand copies of documents for extradition and to give comments while the request is still undergoing evaluation. The Court cannot add, alter or amend provision just to give the respondent any rights when it is not written in the treaty per se. The treaty is interpreted as constitutional before it was adopted and given the force of law in the country. The treaty must also be interpreted in light of its object and purpose, thus, justice must be served without any delay when suppression of crime is the main concern of the requesting state and the state where the criminal may have escaped. Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion
READ FULL TEXT
Comments
Post a Comment