Maria Dominique B.

Vasallo

Government of Hongkong v. Olalia

[G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007]

Petitioner: Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,

Represented By The Philippine Department of Justice.

Respondents: Hon. Felizberto T. Olalia, JR. and Juan Antonio Muñoz.

Doctrine: Since extradition is a “sui generis” that is “merely administrative in

character”, the standard of proof required in granting or denying bail is based on
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. This is neither a criminal, civil, and
administrative case. Thus such quantum of evidence is somewhere between
proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases and preponderance of evidence
in civil cases.

Facts:
Juan Antonio Muñoz was charged before the Hong Kong (HK) Court of three (3)
counts of accepting advantage as an agent and seven (7) counts of conspiracy to
defraud. Warrants of arrests were issued against him [by the HK Court, not a
court in the Philippines] which when convicted; he would face 7 to 14 years of jail
for each charge.

The DOJ received a request for the provisional arrest of Muñoz from the HK
DOJ. The DOJ forwarded the request to the NBI, which in turn, filed with the RTC
of Manila an application to effect such request. Thus, an Order of Arrest was
issued against Muñoz and he was arrested and detained thereafter. [Note: the
Philippines and HK signed an “Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and
Convicted Persons” or an extradition treaty in 1995 that is why, the HK was
represented by the DOJ] Government of HK filed a petition for extradition of
Muñoz with the RTC. Muñoz for his part filed a petition for bail. The said bail
petition was initially denied by then Judge Bernardo holding that there is no
Philippine law granting bail on extradition cases and Muñoz is a high “flight risk.”

On motion for reconsideration, a different judge (Judge Olalia, herein

respondent) took cognizance with the case and granted the motion of Muñoz to
bail. Hence, this petition reached the SC.

Issues:
 Whether or not the right to bail impermissible on the grounds that: an
extradition case is not a criminal proceeding; and there is no law allowing
an extraditee to do so?

Ruling/Ratio:
 No, bail can be granted to subjects of extradition proceedings.

Bail is generally availed in criminal cases; however, an extradition

proceeding -- although ostensibly administrative -- bears all the earmarks
of criminal process. A potential extraditee may be subjected to arrest, to a
prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced to transfer to the demanding state
following the proceedings.

Since jurisprudence on extradition is but an infancy in this jurisdiction, the

SC decided to overturn its previous rulings of not granting bail in
extradition cases. They held that “it is a modern trend in public

1
international law that primacy is placed on the worth of individual person
and sanctity of human rights. Slowly, the recognition that the individual
person may properly be a subject of international law is now taking root.”
The Philippines as a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR) committed to uphold the fundamental human rights as well
s value the worth and dignity of every person. This is enshrined in Sec. II,
Art. II of our Constitution which provides: “The State values the dignity of
every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.” The
Philippines, therefore, is under the obligation to make available to every
person under detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental
right to liberty.

Indeed, there is no law allowing the right to bail on extradition cases, but
the Constitution is silent as to deprive subject offenders for the same.
Moreover, it is important to note that on several occasions, the SC granted
bail in deportation cases as this was sanctioned the UDHR as well as our
obligation to comply with other international conventions to uphold human
rights. Thus,

Hence, the SC held that there is no justification why bail should not be
allowed in extradition cases.