United States v.

Purganan
GR No. 148571, 24 September 2002

DOCTRINES:

Extradition proceedings are sui generis

Persons to be extradited are presumed to be flight risks
The provision in the Constitution stating that the right to bail shall not be impaired even
when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended does not detract from the
rule that the constitutional right to bail is available only in criminal proceedings.

FACTS:

This Petition is a sequel to GR No. 139465 entitled Secretary of Justice v. Ralph C.

Lantion where the court held that Jimenez was bereft of the right to notice and hearing
during the evaluation stage of the extradition process.

Finding no more legal obstacle, the Government of the United States of America,
represented by the Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC on 18 May 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 on 15 April 1999.

Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Jimenez filed before it an Urgent
Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion, which prayed that Jimenezs application for an arrest
warrant be set for hearing. In its 23 May 2001 Order, the RTC granted the Motion of
Jimenez and set the case for hearing on 5 June 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. In his Memorandum, Jimenez sought an alternative prayer: that in case a
warrant should issue, he be allowed to post bail in the amount of P100,000.

The alternative prayer of Jimenez was also set for hearing on 15 June 2001. Thereafter,
the court below issued its 3 July 2001 Order, directing the issuance of warrant for his
arrest and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at P1 million in cash. After he had
surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond, Jimenez was granted
provisional liberty via the challenged Order dated 4 July 2001. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether the accused-extraditee is entitled to bail and provisional liberty while extradition
proceedings are pending

RATIO:

NO, 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.

As pointed out in Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, extradition proceedings are not criminal
in nature. In criminal proceedings, the constitutional rights of the accused are at fore; in
extradition which is sui generis- in a class by itself, they are not. An extradition
[proceeding] is sui generis. It is not a criminal proceeding which will call into operation all
the rights of an accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. To begin with, the process
of extradition does not involve the determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused.
His guilt or innocence will be adjudged in the court of the state where he will be
extradited. Hence, as a rule, constitutional rights that are only relevant to determine the
guilt or innocence of an accused cannot be invoked by an extraditee x x x.

We cannot allow our country to be a haven for fugitives, cowards and weaklings who,
instead of facing the consequences of their actions, choose to run and hide. Hence, it
would not be good policy to increase the risk of violating our treaty obligations if, through
overprotection or excessively liberal treatment, persons sought to be extradited can
evade arrest or escape from our custody. In the absence of any provision in the
Constitution, the law or the treaty expressly guaranteeing the right to bail in extradition
proceedings, adopting the practice of not granting them bail, as a general rule, would be
a step towards deterring fugitives from coming to the Philippines to hide from or evade
their prosecutors.