Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 153675 April 19, 2007
GOVERNMENT OF HONG ONG SPEC!A" A#M!N!STRAT!VE REG!ON, r$pr$%$&'$( )* '+$
P+ilippi&$ #$p,r'-$&' o. /0%'i1$, Petitioner,
vs.
HON. FE"!23ERTO T. O"A"!A, /R. ,&( /UAN ANTON!O MU4O5, Respondents.
D E C I S I N
SAN#OVA"6GUT!ERRE5, J.:
!or our resolution is the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule "# of the $%%& Rules of Civil
Procedure, as a'ended, see(in) to nullif* the t+o rders of the Re)ional ,rial Court -R,C., Branch
/, Manila -presided b* respondent 0ud)e !eli1berto ,. lalia, 0r.. issued in Civil Case No. %%2%#&&3.
,hese are4 -$. the rder dated Dece'ber 56, 566$ allo+in) 0uan Antonio Mu7o8, private
respondent, to post bail9 and -5. the rder dated April $6, 5665 den*in) the 'otion to vacate the
said rder of Dece'ber 56, 566$ filed b* the :overn'ent of ;on) <on) Special Ad'inistrative
Re)ion, represented b* the Philippine Depart'ent of 0ustice -D0., petitioner. ,he petition alle)es
that both rders +ere issued b* respondent =ud)e +ith )rave abuse of discretion a'ountin) to lac(
or e1cess of =urisdiction as there is no provision in the Constitution )rantin) bail to a potential
e1traditee.
,he facts are4
n 0anuar* 36, $%%#, the Republic of the Philippines and the then British Cro+n Colon* of ;on)
<on) si)ned an >A)ree'ent for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons.> It too( effect on
0une 56, $%%&.
n 0ul* $, $%%&, ;on) <on) reverted bac( to the People?s Republic of China and beca'e the ;on)
<on) Special Ad'inistrative Re)ion.
Private respondent Mu7o8 +as char)ed before the ;on) <on) Court +ith three -3. counts of the
offense of >acceptin) an advanta)e as a)ent,> in violation of Section % -$. -a. of the Prevention of
Briber* rdinance, Cap. 56$ of ;on) <on). ;e also faces seven -&. counts of the offense of
conspirac* to defraud, penali8ed b* the co''on la+ of ;on) <on). n Au)ust 53, $%%& and
ctober 5#, $%%%, +arrants of arrest +ere issued a)ainst hi'. If convicted, he faces a =ail ter' of
seven -&. to fourteen -$@. *ears for each char)e.
n Septe'ber $3, $%%%, the D0 received fro' the ;on) <on) Depart'ent of 0ustice a reAuest for
the provisional arrest of private respondent. ,he D0 then for+arded the reAuest to the National
Bureau of Investi)ation -NBI. +hich, in turn, filed +ith the R,C of Manila, Branch $% an application
for the provisional arrest of private respondent.
n Septe'ber 53, $%%%, the R,C, Branch $%, Manila issued an rder of Arrest a)ainst private
respondent. ,hat sa'e da*, the NBI a)ents arrested and detained hi'.
n ctober $@, $%%%, private respondent filed +ith the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari,
prohibition andmandamus +ith application for preli'inar* 'andator* in=unction andBor +rit of habeas
corpus Auestionin) the validit* of the rder of Arrest.
n Nove'ber %, $%%%, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision declarin) the rder of Arrest void.
n Nove'ber $5, $%%%, the D0 filed +ith this Court a petition for revie+ on certiorari, doc(eted as
:.R. No. $@6#56, pra*in) that the Decision of the Court of Appeals be reversed.
n Dece'ber $/, 5666, this Court rendered a Decision )rantin) the petition of the D0 and
sustainin) the validit* of the rder of Arrest a)ainst private respondent. ,he Decision beca'e final
and e1ecutor* on April $6, 566$.
Mean+hile, as earl* as Nove'ber 55, $%%%, petitioner ;on) <on) Special Ad'inistrative Re)ion
filed +ith the R,C of Manila a petition for the e1tradition of private respondent, doc(eted as Civil
Case No. %%2%#&33, raffled off to Branch $6, presided b* 0ud)e Ricardo Bernardo, 0r. !or his part,
private respondent filed, i& '+$ %,-$ 1,%$,2 , p$'i'io& .or ),il +hich +as opposed b* petitioner.
After hearin), or on ctober /, 566$, 0ud)e Bernardo, 0r. issued an rder den*in) the petition for
bail, holdin) that there is no Philippine la+ )rantin) bail in e1tradition cases and that private
respondent is a hi)h >fli)ht ris(.>
n ctober 55, 566$, 0ud)e Bernardo, 0r. inhibited hi'self fro' further hearin) Civil Case No. %%2
%#&33. It +as then raffled off to Branch / presided b* respondent =ud)e.
n ctober 36, 566$, private respondent filed a 'otion for reconsideration of the rder den*in) his
application for bail. ,his +as )ranted b* respondent =ud)e in an rder dated Dece'ber 56, 566$
allo+in) private respondent to post bail, thus4
In conclusion, this Court +ill not contribute to accused?s further erosion of civil liberties. ,he petition
for bail is )ranted sub=ect to the follo+in) conditions4
$. Bail is set at Php&#6,666.66 in cash +ith the condition that accused hereb* underta(es
that he +ill appear and ans+er the issues raised in these proceedin)s and +ill at all ti'es
hold hi'self a'enable to orders and processes of this Court, +ill further appear for
=ud)'ent. If accused fails in this underta(in), the cash bond +ill be forfeited in favor of the
)overn'ent9
5. Accused 'ust surrender his valid passport to this Court9
3. ,he Depart'ent of 0ustice is )iven i''ediate notice and discretion of filin) its o+n 'otion
for hold departure order before this Court even in e1tradition proceedin)9 and
@. Accused is reAuired to report to the )overn'ent prosecutors handlin) this case or if the*
so desire to the nearest office, at an* ti'e and da* of the +ee(9 and if the* further desire,
'anifest before this Court to reAuire that all the assets of accused, real and personal, be
filed +ith this Court soonest, +ith the condition that if the accused flees fro' his underta(in),
said assets be forfeited in favor of the )overn'ent and that the correspondin)
lienBannotation be noted therein accordin)l*.
S RDERED.
n Dece'ber 5$, 566$, petitioner filed an ur)ent 'otion to vacate the above rder, but it +as
denied b* respondent =ud)e in his rder dated April $6, 5665.
;ence, the instant petition. Petitioner alle)ed that the trial court co''itted )rave abuse of discretion
a'ountin) to lac( or e1cess of =urisdiction in ad'ittin) private respondent to bail9 that there is
nothin) in the Constitution or statutor* la+ providin) that a potential e1traditee has a ri)ht to bail, the
ri)ht bein) li'ited solel* to cri'inal proceedin)s.
In his co''ent on the petition, private respondent 'aintained that the ri)ht to bail )uaranteed under
the Bill of Ri)hts e1tends to a prospective e1traditee9 and that e1tradition is a harsh process resultin)
in a prolon)ed deprivation of one?s libert*.
Section $3, Article III of the Constitution provides that the ri)ht to bail shall not be i'paired, thus4
Sec. $3. All persons, e1cept those char)ed +ith offenses punishable b* reclusion perpetua +hen
evidence of )uilt is stron), shall, before conviction, be bailable b* sufficient sureties, or be released
on reco)ni8ance as 'a* be provided b* la+. ,he ri)ht to bail shall not be i'paired even +hen the
privile)e of the +rit of habeas corpus is suspended. E1cessive bail shall not be reAuired.
0urisprudence on e1tradition is but in its infanc* in this =urisdiction. Nonetheless, this is not the first
ti'e that this Court has an occasion to resolve the Auestion of +hether a prospective e1traditee 'a*
be )ranted bail.
In Government of United States of America v. Hon. Guillermo G. Purganan, Presiding Judge, RT of
!anila, "ranch #$, and !ar% ". Jimene&, a.%.a. !ario "atacan respo,
$
this Court, spea(in)
throu)h then Associate 0ustice Arte'io C. Pan)aniban, later Chief 0ustice, held that the
constitutional provision on bail does not appl* to e1tradition proceedin)s. It is >available onl* in
cri'inal proceedin)s,> thus4
1 1 1. As su))ested b* the use of the +ord >conviction,> the constitutional provision on bail Auoted
above, as +ell as Section @, Rule $$@ of the Rules of Court, applies onl* +hen a person has been
arrested and detained for violation of Philippine cri'inal la+s. It does not appl* to e1tradition
proceedin)s because e1tradition courts do not render =ud)'ents of conviction or acAuittal.
Moreover, the constitutional ri)ht to bail >flo+s fro' the presu'ption of innocence in favor of ever*
accused +ho should not be sub=ected to the loss of freedo' as thereafter he +ould be entitled to
acAuittal, unless his )uilt be proved be*ond reasonable doubt> -'e la amara v. (nage, @$ SCRA $,
", Septe'ber $&, $%&$, per !ernando, J., later J.. It follo+s that the constitutional provision on bail
+ill not appl* to a case li(e e1tradition, +here the presu'ption of innocence is not at issue.
,he provision in the Constitution statin) that the >ri)ht to bail shall not be i'paired even +hen the
privile)e of the +rit of habeas corpus is suspended> does not detract fro' the rule that the
constitutional ri)ht to bail is available onl* in cri'inal proceedin)s. It 'ust be noted that the
suspension of the privile)e of the +rit of habeas corpusfinds application >onl* to persons =udiciall*
char)ed for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directl* connected +ith invasion> -Sec. $/, Art. CIII,
Constitution.. ;ence, the second sentence in the constitutional provision on bail 'erel* e'phasi8es
the ri)ht to bail in cri'inal proceedin)s for the afore'entioned offenses. It cannot be ta(en to 'ean
that the ri)ht is available even in e1tradition proceedin)s that are not cri'inal in nature.
At first )lance, the above rulin) applies sAuarel* to private respondent?s case. ;o+ever, this Court
cannot i)nore the follo+in) trends in international la+4 -$. the )ro+in) i'portance of the individual
person in public international la+ +ho, in the 56th centur*, has )raduall* attained )lobal reco)nition9
-5. the hi)her value no+ bein) )iven to hu'an ri)hts in the international sphere9 -3. the
correspondin) dut* of countries to observe these universal hu'an ri)hts in fulfillin) their treat*
obli)ations9 and -@. the dut* of this Court to balance the ri)hts of the individual under our
funda'ental la+, on one hand, and the la+ on e1tradition, on the other.
T+$ -o($r& 'r$&( i& p0)li1 i&'$r&,'io&,l l,7 i% '+$ pri-,1* pl,1$( o& '+$ 7or'+ o. '+$
i&(i8i(0,l p$r%o& ,&( '+$ %,&1'i'* o. +0-,& ri9+'%. Slo+l*, the reco)nition that the individual
person 'a* properl* be a sub=ect of international la+ is no+ ta(in) root. ,he vulnerable doctrine that
the sub=ects of international la+ are li'ited onl* to states +as dra'aticall* eroded to+ards the
second half of the past centur*. !or one, the Nure'ber) and ,o(*o trials after Dorld Dar II resulted
in the unprecedented spectacle of individual defendants for acts characteri8ed as violations of the
la+s of +ar, cri'es a)ainst peace, and cri'es a)ainst hu'anit*. Recentl*, under the Nure'ber)
principle, Serbian leaders have been persecuted for +ar cri'es and cri'es a)ainst hu'anit*
co''itted in the for'er Eu)oslavia. ,hese si)nificant events sho+ that the individual person is no+
a valid sub=ect of international la+.
n a 'ore positive note, also after Dorld Dar II, both international or)ani8ations and states )ave
reco)nition and i'portance to hu'an ri)hts. ,hus, on Dece'ber $6, $%@/, the Fnited Nations
:eneral Asse'bl* adopted the Fniversal Declaration of ;u'an Ri)hts in +hich the ri)ht to life,
libert* and all the other funda'ental ri)hts of ever* person +ere proclai'ed. Dhile not a treat*, '+$
pri&1ipl$% 1o&',i&$( i& '+$ %,i( #$1l,r,'io& ,r$ &o7 r$1o9&i:$( ,% 10%'o-,ril* )i&(i&9 0po&
'+$ -$-)$r% o. '+$ i&'$r&,'io&,l 1o--0&i'*. ,hus, in !e)off v. 'irector of Prisons,
5
'+i% Co0r',
i& 9r,&'i&9 ),il 'o , pro%p$1'i8$ ($por'$$, +$l( '+,' 0&($r '+$ Co&%'i'0'io&,
3
the principles set
forth in that Declaration are part of the la+ of the land. In $%"", the FN :eneral Asse'bl* also
adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Ri)hts +hich the Philippines si)ned and
ratified. !unda'ental a'on) the ri)hts enshrined therein are the ri)hts of ever* person to life, libert*,
and due process.
,he Philippines, alon) +ith the other 'e'bers of the fa'il* of nations, co''itted to uphold the
funda'ental hu'an ri)hts as +ell as value the +orth and di)nit* of ever* person. ,his co''it'ent
is enshrined in Section II, Article II of our Constitution +hich provides4 >,he State values the di)nit*
of ever* hu'an person and )uarantees full respect for hu'an ri)hts.> ,he Philippines, therefore, has
the responsibilit* of protectin) and pro'otin) the ri)ht of ever* person to libert* and due process,
ensurin) that those detained or arrested can participate in the proceedin)s before a court, to enable
it to decide +ithout dela* on the le)alit* of the detention and order their release if =ustified. In other
+ords, the Philippine authorities are under obli)ation to 'a(e available to ever* person under
detention such re'edies +hich safe)uard their funda'ental ri)ht to libert*. ,hese re'edies include
the ri)ht to be ad'itted to bail. Dhile this Court in Purganan li'ited the e1ercise of the ri)ht to bail to
cri'inal proceedin)s, ho+ever, in li)ht of the various international treaties )ivin) reco)nition and
protection to hu'an ri)hts, particularl* the ri)ht to life and libert*, a ree1a'ination of this Court?s
rulin) in Purganan is in order.
*irst, +e note that the e1ercise of the State?s po+er to deprive an individual of his libert* is
not necessaril* li'ited to cri'inal proceedin)s. Respondents in ad'inistrative proceedin)s,
such as deportation and Auarantine,
@
have li(e+ise been detained.
Second, to li'it bail to cri'inal proceedin)s +ould be to close our e*es to our =urisprudential
histor*. Philippine =urisprudence has not li'ited the e1ercise of the ri)ht to bail to cri'inal
proceedin)s onl*. ,his Court has ad'itted to bail persons +ho are not involved in cri'inal
proceedin)s. In fact, bail has been allo+ed in this =urisdiction to persons in detention durin)
the pendenc* of ad'inistrative proceedin)s, ta(in) into co)ni8ance the obli)ation of the
Philippines under international conventions to uphold hu'an ri)hts.
,he $%6% case of US v. Go+Sioco
#
is illustrative. In this case, a Chinese facin) deportation for failure
to secure the necessar* certificate of re)istration +as )ranted bail pendin) his appeal. After notin)
that the prospective deportee had co''itted no cri'e, the Court opined that >,o refuse hi' bail is to
treat hi' as a person +ho has co''itted the 'ost serious cri'e (no+n to la+9> and that +hile
deportation is not a cri'inal proceedin), so'e of the 'achiner* used >is the 'achiner* of cri'inal
la+.> ,hus, the provisions relatin) to bail +as applied to deportation proceedin)s.
In !e)off v. 'irector of Prisons
"
and hirs%off v. ommission of ,mmigration,
&
this Court ruled that
forei)n nationals a)ainst +ho' no for'al cri'inal char)es have been filed 'a* be released on bail
pendin) the finalit* of an order of deportation. As previousl* stated, the Court in !e)off relied upon
the Fniversal declaration of ;u'an Ri)hts in sustainin) the detainee?s ri)ht to bail.
If bail can be )ranted in deportation cases, +e see no =ustification +h* it should not also be allo+ed
in e1tradition cases. Gi(e+ise, considerin) that the Fniversal Declaration of ;u'an Ri)hts applies to
deportation cases, there is no reason +h* it cannot be invo(ed in e1tradition cases. After all, both
are ad'inistrative proceedin)s +here the innocence or )uilt of the person detained is not in issue.
Clearl*, the ri)ht of a prospective e1traditee to appl* for bail in this =urisdiction 'ust be vie+ed in the
li)ht of the various treat* obli)ations of the Philippines concernin) respect for the pro'otion and
protection of hu'an ri)hts. Fnder these treaties, the presu'ption lies in favor of hu'an libert*. ,hus,
the Philippines should see to it that the ri)ht to libert* of ever* individual is not i'paired.
Section 5-a. of Presidential Decree -P.D.. No. $6"% -,he Philippine E1tradition Ga+. defines
>e1tradition> as >the re'oval of an accused fro' the Philippines +ith the ob=ect of placin) hi' at the
disposal of forei)n authorities to enable the reAuestin) state or )overn'ent to hold hi' in connection
+ith an* cri'inal investi)ation directed a)ainst hi' or the e1ecution of a penalt* i'posed on hi'
under the penal or cri'inal la+ of the reAuestin) state or )overn'ent.>
E1tradition has thus been characteri8ed as the ri)ht of a forei)n po+er, created b* treat*, to de'and
the surrender of one accused or convicted of a cri'e +ithin its territorial =urisdiction, and the
correlative dut* of the other state to surrender hi' to the de'andin) state.
/
It is not a cri'inal
proceedin).
%
Even if the potential e1traditee is a cri'inal, an e1tradition proceedin) is not b* its
nature cri'inal, for it is not punish'ent for a cri'e, even thou)h such punish'ent 'a* follo+
e1tradition.
$6
It is sui generis, tracin) its e1istence +holl* to treat* obli)ations bet+een different
nations.
$$
!' i% &o' , 'ri,l 'o ($'$r-i&$ '+$ 90il' or i&&o1$&1$ o. '+$ po'$&'i,l $;'r,(i'$$.
$5
Nor is
it a full2blo+n civil action, but one that is 'erel* ad'inistrative i& 1+,r,1'$r.
$3
Its ob=ect is to prevent
the escape of a person accused or convicted of a cri'e and to secure his return to the state fro'
+hich he fled, for the purpose of trial or punish'ent.
$@
But +hile e1tradition is not a cri'inal proceedin), it is characteri8ed b* the follo+in)4 -a. it entails a
deprivation of libert* on the part of the potential e1traditee and -b. '+$ -$,&% $-plo*$( 'o ,'',i&
'+$ p0rpo%$ o. $;'r,(i'io& i% ,l%o <'+$ -,1+i&$r* o. 1ri-i&,l l,7.< ,his is sho+n b* Section " of
P.D. No. $6"% -,he Philippine E1tradition Ga+. +hich 'andates the >i--$(i,'$ ,rr$%' ,&(
'$-por,r* ($'$&'io& o. '+$ ,110%$(> if such >+ill best serve the interest of =ustice.> De further
note that Section 56 allo+s the reAuestin) state >in case of ur)enc*> to as( for the >pro8i%io&,l
,rr$%' o. '+$ ,110%$(, p$&(i&9 r$1$ip' o. '+$ r$=0$%' .or $;'r,(i'io&>> and that release fro'
provisional arrest >shall not pre=udice re2arrest and e1tradition of the accused if a reAuest for
e1tradition is received subseAuentl*.>
bviousl*, an e1tradition proceedin), +hile ostensibl* ad'inistrative, bears all ear'ar(s of a cri'inal
process. A po'$&'i,l $;'r,(i'$$ -,* )$ %0)?$1'$( 'o ,rr$%', 'o , prolo&9$( r$%'r,i&' o. li)$r'*,
,&( .or1$( 'o 'r,&%.$r 'o '+$ ($-,&(i&9 %','$ .ollo7i&9 '+$ pro1$$(i&9%. >,e'porar*
detention> 'a* be a necessar* step in the process of e1tradition, but the len)th of ti'e of the
detention should be reasonable.
Records sho+ that private respondent +as arrested on Septe'ber 53, $%%%, and re'ained
incarcerated until Dece'ber 56, 566$, +hen the trial court ordered his ad'ission to bail. !& o'+$r
7or(%, +$ +,( )$$& ($',i&$( .or o8$r '7o @2A *$,r% 7i'+o0' +,8i&9 )$$& 1o&8i1'$( o. ,&*
1ri-$. B* an* standard, such an e1tended period of detention is a serious deprivation of his
funda'ental ri)ht to libert*. In fact, it +as this prolon)ed deprivation of libert* +hich pro'pted the
e1tradition court to )rant hi' bail.
Dhile our e1tradition la+ does not provide for the )rant of bail to an e1traditee, ho+ever, there is no
provision prohibitin) hi' or her fro' filin) a 'otion for bail, a ri)ht to due process under the
Constitution.
,he applicable standard of due process, ho+ever, should not be the sa'e as that in cri'inal
proceedin)s. In the latter, the standard of due process is pre'ised on the presu'ption of innocence
of the accused. As Purganancorrectl* points out, it is fro' this 'a=or pre'ise that the ancillar*
presu'ption in favor of ad'ittin) to bail arises. Bearin) in 'ind the purpose of e1tradition
proceedin)s, the pre'ise behind the issuance of the arrest +arrant and the >te'porar* detention> is
the possibilit* of fli)ht of the potential e1traditee. ,his is based on the assu'ption that such
e1traditee is a fu)itive fro' =ustice.
$#
:iven the fore)oin), the prospective e1traditee thus bears
the onus probandi of sho+in) that he or she is not a fli)ht ris( and should be )ranted bail.
,he ti'e2honored principle of pacta sunt servanda de'ands that the Philippines honor its
obli)ations under the E1tradition ,reat* it entered into +ith the ;on) <on) Special Ad'inistrative
Re)ion. !ailure to co'pl* +ith these obli)ations is a setbac( in our forei)n relations and defeats the
purpose of e1tradition. ;o+ever, it does not necessaril* 'ean that in (eepin) +ith its treat*
obli)ations, the Philippines should di'inish a potential e1traditee?s ri)hts to life, libert*, and due
process. More so, +here these ri)hts are )uaranteed, not onl* b* our Constitution, but also b*
international conventions, to +hich the Philippines is a part*. De should not, therefore, deprive an
e1traditee of his ri)ht to appl* for bail, provided that a certain standard for the )rant is satisfactoril*
'et.
An e1tradition proceedin) bein) sui generis, the standard of proof reAuired in )rantin) or den*in)
bail can neither be the proof be*ond reasonable doubt in cri'inal cases nor the standard of proof of
preponderance of evidence in civil cases. Dhile ad'inistrative in character, the standard of
substantial evidence used in ad'inistrative cases cannot li(e+ise appl* )iven the ob=ect of
e1tradition la+ +hich is to prevent the prospective e1traditee fro' fleein) our =urisdiction. In his
Separate pinion in Purganan, then Associate 0ustice, no+ Chief 0ustice Re*nato S. Puno,
proposed that a ne+ standard +hich he ter'ed >1l$,r ,&( 1o&8i&1i&9 $8i($&1$> %+o0l( )$ 0%$(
i& 9r,&'i&9 ),il i& $;'r,(i'io& 1,%$%. Accordin) to hi', this standard should be lo+er than proof
be*ond reasonable doubt but hi)her than preponderance of evidence. ,he potential e1traditee 'ust
prove b* >clear and convincin) evidence> that he is not a fli)ht ris( and +ill abide +ith all the orders
and processes of the e1tradition court.
In this case, there is no sho+in) that private respondent presented evidence to sho+ that he is not
a .li9+' ri%B. ConseAuentl*, this case should be re'anded to the trial court to deter'ine +hether
private respondent 'a* be )ranted bail on the basis of >clear and convincin) evidence.>
CHEREFORE, +e #!SM!SS the petition. ,his case is REMAN#E# to the trial court to deter'ine
+hether private respondent is entitled to bail on the basis of >clear and convincin) evidence.> If not,
the trial court should order the cancellation of his bail bond and his i''ediate detention9 and
thereafter, conduct the e1tradition proceedin)s +ith dispatch.
SO OR#ERE#.
ANGE"!NA SAN#OVA"6GUT!ERRE5
Associate 0ustice
DE CNCFR4
REDNATO S. PUNO
Chief 0ustice
"EONAR#O A. EU!SUM3!NG
Associate 0ustice
CONSUE"O DNARES6SANT!AGO
Asscociate 0ustice
ANTON!O T. CARP!O
Associate 0ustice
MA. A"!C!A AUSTR!A6MART!NE5
Asscociate 0ustice
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate 0ustice
CONCH!TA CARP!O MORA"ES
Asscociate 0ustice
ROMEO /. CA""E/O, SR.
Associate 0ustice
A#O"FO S. A5CUNA
Asscociate 0ustice
M!N!TA V. CH!CO6NA5AR!O
Associate 0ustice
#ANTE O. T!NGA
Asscociate 0ustice
CANC!O C. GARC!A
Associate 0ustice
PRES3!TERO /. VE"ASCO, /R.
Asscociate 0ustice
ANTON!O E#UAR#O 3. NACHURA
Associate 0ustice
C E R , I ! I C A , I N
Pursuant to Section $3, Article CIII of the Constitution, it is hereb* certified that the conclusions in the
above Decision +ere reached in consultation before the case +as assi)ned to the +riter of the
opinion of the Court.
REDNATO S. PUNO
Chief 0ustice