GOVERNMENT OF HONGKONG vs. HON.

OLALIA AND MUÑOZ

G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007
FACTS:
Muñoz was charged before the Hong Kong Court of 3 counts of the offense of accepting
an advantage as agent, and 7 counts of the offense of conspiracy. Warrants of arrest
were later issued against him.
On September 13, 1999, the DOJ received from the Hong Kong DOJ, a request for the
provisional arrest of Muñoz. The DOJ forwarded the request to the NBI, which later filed
with the RTC of Manila, an application for the provisional arrest of Muñoz. The RTC of
Manila later issued the warrant of arrest and the NBI later arrested him. Muñoz
subsequently filed an appeal with the CA questioning the validity of his arrest. The CA
later declared his arrest void. Later on appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court sustained
the validity of the arrest of Muñoz.
Earlier, the Government of HK, filed a petition for the extradition of Muñoz. In the same
case, Muñoz filed a petition for bail. After hearing, an Order denying the petition for bail
was rendered holding that there is no Philippine law granting bail in extradition cases and
that private respondent is a high "flight risk." Muñoz then filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Order denying his application for bail which was later granted. The
Government of Hong Kong is now questioning said grant of bail to Muñoz arguing that
there is nothing in the Constitution or statutory law providing that a potential extraditee
has a right to bail, the right being limited solely to criminal proceedings.
ISSUE: Whether or not the right to bail can be granted in the case of Muñoz,
an extradition case.
HELD: YES
As a rule, the right to bail of an accused is granted 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.
At first glance, the above ruling applies squarely to private respondent’s case. However,
this Court cannot ignore trends in international law, with the modern trend in public
international law placing primacy on the worth of the individual person and the sanctity
of human rights. With the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after
World War II, human rights principles were then given recognition and importance
whereby the principles therein, are now recognized as customarily binding upon the
members of the international community.
Examining the US vs. Purugnan case, the Court ruled that to limit the right to bail in the
criminal proceeding would be to close our eyes to jurisprudential history. Philippines has
not limited the exercise of the right to bail to criminal proceedings only. This Court has
admitted to bail persons who are not involved in criminal proceedings. In fact, bail has
been involved in this jurisdiction to persons in detention during the tendency of
administrative proceedings, taking into cognisance the obligation of the Philippines under
international conventions to uphold human rights.
In extradition, the extradited may be subject to detention as may be necessary step in
the process of extradition, but the length of time in the detention should be reasonable.
In the case at bar, the record show that the respondent, Muñoz has been detained for 2
years without being convicted in Hongkong.
The Philippines has the obligation of ensuring the individual his right to liberty and due
process and should not therefor deprive the extraditee of his right to bail PROVIDED that
certain standards for the grant is satisfactorily met. In other words there should be
“CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE”.
However in the case at bar, the respondent was not able to show and clear and convincing
evidence that he be entitled to bail. Thus the case is remanded in the court for the
determination and otherwise, should order the cancellation of his bond and his immediate
detention.