Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1


FACTS: Petition is a sequel to the case “Sec. of Justice v. Hon. Lantion”. The Secretary was ordered to
furnish Mr. Jimenez copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers and to grant the latter a
reasonable period within which to file a comment and supporting evidence. But, on motion for
reconsideration by the Sec. of Justice, it reversed its decision but held that the Mr. Jimenez 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 USA, represented by the Philippine Department of Justice, filed with the RTC, the
Petition for Extradition praying for the issuance of an order for his “immediate arrest” pursuant to Sec. 6
of PD 1069 in order to prevent the flight of Jimenez. Before the RTC could act on the petition, Mr. Jimenez
filed before it an “Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion” praying for his application for an arrest warrant
be set for hearing. After the hearing, as required by the court, Mr. Jimenez submitted his Memorandum.
Therein seeking an alternative prayer that in case a warrant should issue, he be allowed to post bail in the
amount of P100,000. The court ordered the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his
temporary liberty at P1M in cash. After he had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash
bond, Jimenez was granted provisional liberty.

Government of the USA filed a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to set aside the
order for the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at P1M in cash
which the court deems best to take cognizance as there is still no local jurisprudence to guide lower court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the right to bail is available in extradition proceedings

HELD: No. The court agree with petitioner. As suggested by the use of the word “conviction,” the
constitutional provision on bail quoted above, 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

It is also worth noting that before the US government requested the extradition of respondent,
proceedings had already been conducted in that country. But because he left the jurisdiction of the
requesting state before those proceedings could be completed, it was hindered from continuing with
the due processes prescribed under its laws. His invocation of due process now has thus become hollow.
He already had that opportunity in the requesting state; yet, instead of taking it, he ran away.