Clarebeth R.

Ramos

Government of the United States of America, Represented by the Philippine Department of

Justice vs. Hon. Guillermo Purganan, Presiding Judge Regional Trial Court of Manila and Marc
Jimenez a.k.a. Marcio Batacan Crespo
G.R. No. 148571, September 24, 2002
Panganiban, J.

I. Doctrine
Extradition cases are different from ordinary criminal proceedings. It follows that
the constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a case like extradition, where the
presumption of innocence is not at issue. It does not apply to extradition proceedings
because extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal.

II. Facts
Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the United States Government,
through diplomatic channels, sent to the Philippine Government Note Verbale No.
0522 requesting the extradition of Marc B. Jimenez, also known as Marcio Batacan
Crespo.

Upon learning of the request for his extradition, Jimenez sought and was granted a
Temporary Restraining Order by the RTC of Manila. The TRO prohibited the
Department of Justice from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition. The
validity of the TRO was, however, assailed by the DOJ in a Petition before this Court
in the said GR No. 139465. Initially, the Court dismissed the Petition. The DOJ was
ordered to furnish private respondent 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.

Finding no more legal obstacle, the Government of the United States of America,
represented by the Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC on May 18, 2001, the
appropriate Petition for Extradition which was docketed as Extradition Case
01192061. The Petition alleged, inter alia, that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest
warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Jimenez filed before it an “Urgent
Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion,” which prayed that Jimenez’s application for an
arrest warrant be set for hearing. In its May 23, 2001 Order, the RTC granted the
Motion of Jimenez and set the case for hearing on June 5, 2001. In that hearing,
Jimenez manifested its reservations on the procedure adopted by the trial court
allowing the accused in an extradition case to be heard prior to the issuance of a
warrant of arrest. After the hearing, the court a quo required the parties to submit their
respective memoranda.
III. Issue/s
Whether Jimenez is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition
proceedings are pending

IV. Ruling
No. The court agrees 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
acquittal.

Extradition cases are different from ordinary criminal proceedings. The

constitutional right to bail “flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of
every accused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he
would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt.” It
follows that the constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a case like
extradition, where the presumption of innocence is not at issue.

Contrary to Jimenez’s contention, his detention prior to the conclusion of the

extradition proceedings does not amount to a violation of his right to due process. The
Court iterated the familiar doctrine that the essence of due process is the opportunity
to be heard but, at the same time, point out that the doctrine does not always call for
a prior opportunity to be heard. Where the circumstances — such as those present in
an extradition case — call for it, a subsequent opportunity to be heard is enough. In
the present case, respondent will be given full opportunity to be heard subsequently,
when the extradition court hears the Petition for Extradition.  Hence, there is no
violation of his right to due process and fundamental fairness.