GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, represented by the Philippine Department of Justice v. HON. FELIXBERTO T. OLALIA, Jr. and JUAN ANTONIO MUÑOZ G.R. No. 153675, 19 April 2007, EN BANC DIVISION (Sandoval – Guitierrez, Guitierrez, J.) 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 received a request for the provisional 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 a n 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. [Note: Sec. 2(a) of PD 1069 (Philippine Extradition Law) defines extradition as “the removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting state or government to hold him in connection with any criminal investigation directed against him or the execution of a penalty imposed on him under the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or government”]
ISSUE: Is 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: 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 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 as 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 gua rantees 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, the SC said that there is no justification why it should not be allowed in extradition cases. Note: Since extradition is a “sui generis” generis” (a kind of its own ) 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. T hus such quantum of evidence is somewhere between proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases and preponderance of evidence in civil cases.
