SECRETARY OF JUSTICE vs.

MUNOZ

Facts:
The Hong Kong Magistrates Court issued a warrant for the arrest of Munoz for
accepting bribes in violation of a HK ordinance and for conspiring to defraud. Later, the
Philippines DOJ was requested by the Mutual Legal Assistance Unit of the Hong Kong
DOJ for the provisional arrest of Munoz pursuant to the RP-HK Extradition Agreement.
The request was forwarded to the NBI. Subsequently, a warrant for the arrest of Munoz
was issued by the RTC.

Munoz filed with the CA a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with
application for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or writ of habeas corpus assailing
the validity of the Order of Arrest, which the CA granted on the ff. grounds: 1) that the
request was unauthenticated and mere facsimile copies which are insufficient to form a
basis for its issuance; 2) that the 20 day period under PD 1069 or the Philippine
extradition law was not amended by the RP-HK extradition agreement which provides for
a 45 day period for provisional arrest; 3) the judge issued it without having personally
determined the existence of probable cause; and 4) the requirement of dual criminality
under the Philippine extradition law has not been satisfied as the crimes complained of
are not punishable by Philippine laws. Munoz filed for release contending that since he
has been detained beyond 20 days, the maximum for the provisional arrest, without a
request for extradition being received by the DOJ, he should be released.

Issue: Whether the provisional warrant of arrest issued by the RTC was void?

Held:
YES. Sec. 20 of PD 1069 provides that the requesting state may, pursuant to the
relevant treaty or convention and while the same remains in force, request for the
provisional arrest of the accused, pending receipt of the request for extradition.

In urgent cases, the person sought may, in accordance with the law of the requested
Party, be provisionally arrested on the application of the requesting Party. There was
urgency in the present case as there was a concern of Munoz being a flight risk if he will
be informed of the pending request for extradition especially given the fact that if he will
be found guilty of the charges against him, the penalties are of such gravity as to
increase the probability of Munoz absconding if allowed provisional liberty. The request,
as well as the accompanying documents, is valid despite lack of authentication.

The pertinent extradition law does not provide for a requirement of authentication for the
provisional arrest. Moreover, the authenticated copies of the decision or sentence
imposed upon Munoz by HK and the warrant of arrest has already been received by the
Phil. Furthermore, the extradition agreement only requires authentication for the request
of extradition and not for the provisional arrest.

Provisional arrest is a solution to the impending risk of flight as the process of preparing
a formal request for extradition and its accompanying documents is time-consuming and
leakage-prone. Thus, it is an accepted practice for the requesting state to rush its
request in the form of a telex or diplomatic cable or facsimile. The temporary hold on
private respondents privilege of notice and hearing is a soft restraint on his right to due
process which will not deprive him of fundamental fairness should he decide to resist the
request for his extradition to HK. There is no denial of due process as long as
fundamental fairness is assured a party.