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 v. Lantion
GR 139465, Jan. 18, 2000
FACTS:
On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs a U. S. Note Verbale containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez to the United States. Attached to it were the Grand Jury Indictment, the warrant of arrest issued by the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, and other supporting documents for said extradition. Secretary of Justice v. Lantion
On the same day, the petitioner designated and authorized a panel of attorneys to handle the case in pursuant to Section 5 (1) of Presidential Decree No. 1069. Said attorneys will make a "technical evaluation and assessment" of the extradition request and its supporting documents. The panel found that there are still documents that need to be addressed with.
While the evaluation is still pending due to lack of documents, the respondent wrote a letter requesting copies of the official extradition request from the U. S. Government, as well as all documents and papers submitted therewith; and that he be given ample time to comment on the request after he shall have received copies of the requested papers. However, the petitioner denied such requests in a letter dated July 13, 1999. Secretary of Justice v. Lantion
In response, private respondent filed with the RTC against petitioners a petition for:
1. mandamus - to compel herein petitioner to furnish private respondent the extradition documents, to give him access thereto, and to afford him an opportunity to comment on, or oppose, the extradition request, and thereafter to evaluate the request impartially, fairly and objectively;
2. certiorari - to set aside herein petitioners letter dated July 13, 1999; and
3. prohibition - to restrain petitioner from considering the extradition request and from filing an extradition petition in court.
As the presiding judge in the said case, respondent Judge Lantion, granted the petitions.
Read: Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion [Reconsideration]
ISSUE:
Whether or not the private respondent is denied with due process of law to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. Secretary of Justice v. Lantion
HELD:
Yes. The petition is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. Petitioner is ordered to provide private respondents 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.
Read: Manosca v. Court of Appeals
Private respondent does not only face a clear and present danger of loss of property or employment, but of liberty itself, which may eventually lead to his forcible banishment to a foreign land. The convergence of petitioner's favorable action on the extradition request and the deprivation of private respondent's liberty is easily comprehensible. Secretary of Justice v. Lantion
READ FULL TEXT
GR 139465, Jan. 18, 2000
FACTS:
On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs a U. S. Note Verbale containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez to the United States. Attached to it were the Grand Jury Indictment, the warrant of arrest issued by the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, and other supporting documents for said extradition. Secretary of Justice v. Lantion
On the same day, the petitioner designated and authorized a panel of attorneys to handle the case in pursuant to Section 5 (1) of Presidential Decree No. 1069. Said attorneys will make a "technical evaluation and assessment" of the extradition request and its supporting documents. The panel found that there are still documents that need to be addressed with.
While the evaluation is still pending due to lack of documents, the respondent wrote a letter requesting copies of the official extradition request from the U. S. Government, as well as all documents and papers submitted therewith; and that he be given ample time to comment on the request after he shall have received copies of the requested papers. However, the petitioner denied such requests in a letter dated July 13, 1999. Secretary of Justice v. Lantion
In response, private respondent filed with the RTC against petitioners a petition for:
1. mandamus - to compel herein petitioner to furnish private respondent the extradition documents, to give him access thereto, and to afford him an opportunity to comment on, or oppose, the extradition request, and thereafter to evaluate the request impartially, fairly and objectively;
2. certiorari - to set aside herein petitioners letter dated July 13, 1999; and
3. prohibition - to restrain petitioner from considering the extradition request and from filing an extradition petition in court.
As the presiding judge in the said case, respondent Judge Lantion, granted the petitions.
Read: Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion [Reconsideration]
ISSUE:
Whether or not the private respondent is denied with due process of law to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. Secretary of Justice v. Lantion
HELD:
Yes. The petition is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. Petitioner is ordered to provide private respondents 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.
Read: Manosca v. Court of Appeals
Private respondent does not only face a clear and present danger of loss of property or employment, but of liberty itself, which may eventually lead to his forcible banishment to a foreign land. The convergence of petitioner's favorable action on the extradition request and the deprivation of private respondent's liberty is easily comprehensible. Secretary of Justice v. Lantion
READ FULL TEXT
Comments
Post a Comment