G.R. Nos. L-24646 & L-24674 June 20, 1977 FAUSTINA CALLANTA, petitioner, vs.HON.

FELIPE VILLANUEVA, City Judge, City Court of Dagupan City, CORNELIA JIMENEZ and PASTORA DAVID JIMENEZ, respondents. The denial by respondent City Judge Felipe Villanueva of Dagupan City to grant the motions to quash the two complaints for grave oral defamation against petitioner gave rise to these suits for certiorari, the validity of the issuance of the warrants of arrest by respondent City Judge Felipe Villanueva of Dagupan City 1 being contested on the ground that it should have been the City Fiscal who should have conducted the preliminary examination. There was then, in the opinion of petitioner's counsel, a jurisdictional infirmity. From the very petition itself, however, it was shown that after such issuance of the warrants of arrest with the bail fixed in the amount of P600.00, petitioner posted such required bail bonds, thus obtaining her provisional liberty. 2 Moreover, in the answer of respondents, it was expressly set forth: "The City Fiscal has shown intent to prosecute the petitioner in the Criminal Cages Nos. 9298 and 9375. As early as February 25, 1965, after conducting his preliminary examination and after acquiring jurisdiction over the petitioner the respondent Court referred the complaints in Criminal Cases Nos. 9298 and 9375 to the City Fiscal. ... So that on March 4, 1965, the arraignment and hearing of the cases were postponed because the City Fiscal was investigating them. ... It may also be noted that at the proceedings in said criminal cases on April 20, 1965, the Fiscal entered his appearance for the government and manifested that he was ready for trial. If the Fiscal did not agree with the Judge in the latter's investigation of the case, he would have asked for a further reinvestigation of the cases. But the City Fiscal did not. On the other hand the Fiscal appeared at the proceedings to prosecute the petitioner, indicating that he was in agreement with the complaint already filed." 3 There was no denial thereof by petitioner. On the above facts, certiorari does not lie. 1. With the express admission by petitioner that she had posted the required bail to obtain her provisional liberty, it becomes futile to assail the validity of the issuance of the warrants of arrest. This excerpt from the opinion of Justice Sanchez in Zacarias v. Cruz, 4 finds pertinence: "Posting of a bail bond constitutes waiver of any irregularity attending the arrest of a person, stop him from discussing the validity of his arrest. In the recent case of Luna v. Plaza ..., our ruling is that where petitioner has filed an application for bail and waived the preliminary investigation proper, 'he waived his objection to whatever defect, if any, in the preliminary examination conducted... prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest.'" 5 As a matter of fact, such a doctrine goes back to People v. Olandag, 6 the opinion being rendered by former Chief Justice Paras. After Zacarias, mention may be made of three other decisions, Bermejo v. Barrios; 7 People v. La Caste 8 and Manzano v. Villa. 9 The latest case in point isPeople v. Obngayan 10 where this Court, through Justice Antonio, after referring to Luna v. Plaza, again reiterated the ruling "that where the accused has filed bail and waived the preliminary investigation proper, he has waived whatever defect, if any, in the preliminary examination conducted prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest.'" 11At any rate, it cannot be denied that the City Fiscal of Dagupan City had been quite active in the investigation and thereafter in the prosecution of petitioner. The matter was referred to his office. It was he who appeared at the hearing and manifested his readiness to proceed with the trial. It would be then to pay an undue premium to technicalities to assert that under such circumstances the procedural requisite, assuming that the contention of petitioner is correct, of such official conducting the preliminary examination was not in fact complied with. 2. Nor can it be concluded that there is justification for the tone of certainty of counsel for petitioner that only the City Fiscal of Dagupan may conduct a preliminary examination. Apparently, he had in mind Sayo v. Chief of Police of Manila. 12 That was a decision involving the Charter of the City of Manila, The opinion of Justice Feria did State the following: "Under the law, a complaint charging a person of commission of an offense cognizable by the courts of Manila is not filed with the municipal court or the Court of First Instance of Manila, because as above stated the latter do not make or conduct preliminary investigation ...." 13 Such a doctrine is inapplicable. The reliance is, therefore, misplaced. The Charter of the City of Dagupan cannot be any clearer. The City Court of Dagupan City "may also conduct preliminary investigation for any offense, without regard to the limits of punishment, and may release, or commit and bind over any person charged with such offense to secure his appearance before the proper court." 14 WHEREFORE, these petitions for certiorari are dismissed. The restraining order issued by this Court is lifted and set aside. Costs against petitioner. G.R. No. L-65228 February 18, 1985 JOJO PASTOR BRAVO, JR., ETC., petitioner, vs.HON. MELECIO B. BORJA, ET AL., respondents. In the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, petitioner Jojo Pastor Bravo, Jr., is charged with murder for the killing of one Ramon Abiog (Criminal Case No. 83-184). Detained in the city jail of Naga after his arrest, petitioner filed a motion for bail based on two reasons: (a) that the evidence against him is not strong in view of the retraction by Ferdinand del Rosario, one of the prosecution witnesses, of his previous statement naming petitioner as the assailant; and (b) that he is a minor of 16 years, entitled as such to a privileged mitigating circumstance under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code which would make the murder charge against him non-capital. After a hearing during which the retracting witness (del Rosario) presented by petitioner made another turn-about and declared against the latter, respondent Judge Melecio B. Borja denied the motion for bail on the finding that the evidence of petitioner's guilt is strong and his minority was not proved. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration stating that his minority had been proved by his birth certificate which was attached to the memorandum in support of his motion for bail, showing that he was born on February 26, 1967, that his minority had never been challenged by the fiscal, and that the offense charged, as regards petitioner, is not capital because even if convicted, he could not be sentenced to death because of his minority. Again, attached to the motion for reconsideration was a duly certified copy of petitioner's birth certificate. The Fiscal opposed the motion on the ground that the evidence of guilt is strong, but did not contest the minority of petitioner. In his order of September 21, 1983, respondent Judge denied the motion for reconsideration. Failing in his bid for bail, petitioner then filed a motion with the lower court praying that he be placed in the care and custody of the Ministry of Social Services and Development (MSSD) pursuant to Article 191 of Presidential Decree No. 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Code) which provides: Care of Youthful Offender Held for Examination or Trial. A youthful offender held for physical and mental examination or trial or pending appeal, if unable to furnish bail, shall from time to time (sic) of his arrest be committed to the care of the Department of Social Welfare or the local rehabilitation center or a detention home in the province or city which shall be responsible for his appearance in court whenever required: Provided, That in the absence of any such center or agency within a reasonable distance from the venue of the trial, the provincial, city and municipal jail shall provide quarters for youthful offenders separate from other detainees. The court may, in its discretion upon recommendation of the Department of Social Welfare or other agency or agencies authorized by the Court, release a youthful offender on recognizance. to the custody of his parents or other suitable person who shall be responsible for his appearance whenever required. On September 22, 1983, respondent judge denied the motion for lack of merit. Explaining the denial later, he said that the quoted Article 191 is not applicable since it could be invoked only where the minor is charged with a bailable offense, as could be gleaned from the phrase "if unable to furnish bail." On September 22, 1983, the NBI Regional Office at Naga City submitted its report, copy of which was sent to the City Fiscal of Naga. It found that it was the prosecution witness, Ferdinand del Rosario, and not the petitioner, who killed the deceased Ramon Abiog. When the murder case was next called for hearing on October 19, 1983, the defense unilaterally moved orally that the trial of petitioner be reset in order to give the City Fiscal more time to study the NBI report, but the motion was denied as dilatory. Again, on November 2, 1983, petitioner unilaterally filed with the trial court a formal Motion for Reinvestigation praying "that the proceedings be suspended and that the City Fiscal of Naga be ordered to reinvestigate this case." It does not appear what action, if any, the court has taken on this motion. Neither does it appear that the City Fiscal of Naga has taken any move to reinvestigate the case. Against this factual backdrop, petitioner has filed the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus, with two supplementary petitions, seeking the release of petitioner on bail or his transfer to the custody of the MSSD pending trial pursuant to Article 191 of PD No. 603. In view of the aforesaid NBI report, the petition also seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding respondent Judge to remand the case to the City Fiscal of Naga for reinvestigation. The first question to be resolved is whether petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right. Under the Constitution, "all persons, except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties." (Article IV, Section 18.) Generally, therefore, bail is a matter of right before conviction, unless the accused is charged with a capital offense and the evidence of guilt is strong. The charge against petitioner is murder qualified by treachery and attended by two aggravating circumstances: evident premeditation and nocturnity. Punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, the crime is therefore a capital offense. The petitioner however submits that even assuming that the evidence of guilt against him is strong, the charge of murder, as to him who is only 16 years old, cannot be capital because the death penalty cannot be imposed on account of his minority which entitles him to a penalty reduction of one degree. In effect, under petitioner's submission, the test to determine whether the offense charged is capital, is the penalty to be actually imposed on him in view of the attendant circumstances. Petitioner's posture hardly finds support in the law. Under Section 5 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, a capital offense is "an offense which, under the law existing at the time of its commission, and at the time of the application to be admitted to bail, may be punished by death." It is clear from this provision that the capital nature of an offense is determined by the penalty prescribed by law, with reference to which it is relatively easy to ascertain whether the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. Moreover, when the Constitution or the law speaks of evidence of guilt, it evidently refers to a finding of innocence or culpability, regardless of the modifying circumstances. To allow bail on the basis of the penalty to be actually imposed would require a consideration not only of the evidence of the commission of the crime but also evidence of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. There would then be a need for a complete trial, after which the judge would be just about ready to render a decision in

the case. As perceptively observed by the Solicitor General, such procedure would defeat the purpose of bail, which is to entitle the accused to provisional liberty pending trial. Nevertheless, where it has been established without objection that the accused is only 16 years old, it follows that, if convicted, he would be given "the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law," which effectively rules out the death penalty. The Constitution withholds the guaranty of bail from one who is accused of a capital offense where the evidence of guilt is strong. The obvious reason is that one who faces a probable death sentence has a particularly strong temptation to flee. This reason does not hold where the accused has been established without objection to be a minor who by law cannot be sentenced to death. But respondent judge claims that petitioner has not proved his minority. This is inaccurate. In his motion for bail, petitioner alleged that he was a minor of 16 and this averment was never challenged by the prosecution. Subsequently, in his memorandum in support of the motion for bail, petitioner attached a copy of his birth certificate. And finally, after respondent Judge had denied the motion for bail, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching thereto a certified true copy of his birth certificate. Respondents Judge however refused to take cognizance of petitioner's unchallenged minority allegedly because the certificate of birth was not offered in evidence. This was error because evidence of petitioner's minority was already a part of the record of the case. It was properly filed in support of a motion. It would be a needless formality to offer it in evidence. Respondent Judge therefore acted with grave abuse of discretion in disregarding it. Evidence on motion. When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. (Rules of Court, Rule 133, Section 7.) It results that petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right, which makes it unnecessary to decide whether he, being a minor, is entitled to be placed pending trial in the care and custody of the MSSD pursuant to Article 191 of P.D. No. 603. Turning to the reinvestigation aspect of the petition, the plea therefor must be addressed to the City Fiscal of Naga, who has direction and control of the criminal prosecution and who is the primary official called upon to evaluate the evidence, ascertain the existence of a prima facie case and determine who should be criminally indicted. In case of unjustified refusal by the City Fiscal to conduct a reinvestigation, the proper recourse is to appeal to the Minister of Justice who exercises control and supervision over fiscals. WHEREFORE, the orders of respondent Judge denying bail to petitioner are set aside. In the interest of dispatch, bail for petitioner is fixed at P15,000.00 and his release is ordered upon the posting thereof and its approval by the trial judge, unless petitioner is held for some other cause. The petition for mandamus to compel reinvestigation of the case is denied. This decision is immediately executory. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-62100 May 30, 1986 RICARDO L. MANOTOC, JR., petitioner, vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS, HONS. SERAFIN E. CAMILON and RICARDO L. PRONOVE, JR., as Judges of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig branches, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, the SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMISSION, HON. EDMUNDO M. REYES, as Commissioner of Immigration, and the Chief of the Aviation Security Command (AVSECOM), respondents. The issue posed for resolution in this petition for review may be stated thus: Does a person facing a criminal indictment and provisionally released on bail have an unrestricted right to travel? Petitioner Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr., is one of the two principal stockholders of Trans-Insular Management, Inc. and the Manotoc Securities, Inc., a stock brokerage house. Having transferred the management of the latter into the hands of professional men, he holds no officer-position in said business, but acts as president of the former corporation. Following the "run" on stock brokerages caused by stock broker Santamaria's flight from this jurisdiction, petitioner, who was then in the United States, came home, and together with his co-stockholders, filed a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the appointment of a management committee, not only for Manotoc Securities, Inc., but likewise for Trans-Insular Management, Inc. The petition relative to the Manotoc Securities, Inc., docketed as SEC Case No. 001826, entitled, "In the Matter of the Appointment of a Management Committee for Manotoc Securities, Inc., Teodoro Kalaw, Jr., Ricardo Manotoc, Jr., Petitioners", was granted and a management committee was organized and appointed. Pending disposition of SEC Case No. 001826, the Securities and Exchange Commission requested the then Commissioner of Immigration, Edmundo Reyes, not to clear petitioner for departure and a memorandum to this effect was issued by the Commissioner on February 4, 1980 to the Chief of the Immigration Regulation Division. When a Torrens title submitted to and accepted by Manotoc Securities, Inc. was suspected to be a fake, six of its clients filed six separate criminal complaints against petitioner and one Raul Leveriza, Jr., as president and vice-president, respectively, of Manotoc Securities, Inc. In due course, corresponding criminal charges for estafa were filed by the investigating fiscal before the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 45399 and 45400, assigned to respondent Judge Camilon, and Criminal Cases Nos. 45542 to 45545, raffled off to Judge Pronove. In all cases, petitioner has been admitted to bail in the total amount of P105,000.00, with FGU Instance Corporation as surety. On March 1, 1982, petitioner filed before each of the trial courts a motion entitled, "motion for permission to leave the country," stating as ground therefor his desire to go to the United States, "relative to his business transactions and opportunities." 1 The prosecution opposed said motion and after due hearing, both trial judges denied the same. The order of Judge Camilon dated March 9, 1982, reads: Accused Ricardo Manotoc Jr. desires to leave for the United States on the all embracing ground that his trip is ... relative to his business transactions and opportunities. The Court sees no urgency from this statement. No matter of any magnitude is discerned to warrant judicial imprimatur on the proposed trip. In view thereof, permission to leave the country is denied Ricardo Manotoc, Jr. now or in the future until these two (2) cases are terminated . 2 On the other hand, the order of Judge Pronove dated March 26, 1982, reads in part: 6.-Finally, there is also merit in the prosecution's contention that if the Court would allow the accused to leave the Philippines the surety companies that filed the bail bonds in his behalf might claim that they could no longer be held liable in their undertakings because it was the Court which allowed the accused to go outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippine Court, should the accused fail or decide not to return. WHEREFORE, the motion of the accused is DENIED. 3 It appears that petitioner likewise wrote the Immigration Commissioner a letter requesting the recall or withdrawal of the latter's memorandum dated February 4, 1980, but said request was also denied in a letter dated May 27, 1982. Petitioner thus filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the then Court of Appeals 4 seeking to annul the orders dated March 9 and 26, 1982, of Judges Camilon and Pronove, respectively, as well as the communication-request of the Securities and Exchange Commission, denying his leave to travel abroad. He likewise prayed for the issuance of the appropriate writ commanding the Immigration Commissioner and the Chief of the Aviation Security Command (AVSECOM) to clear him for departure. On October 5, 1982, the appellate court rendered a decision 5 dismissing the petition for lack of merit. Dissatisfied with the appellate court's ruling, petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari. Pending resolution of the petition to which we gave due course on April 14, 1983 6 petitioner filed on August 15, 1984 a motion for leave to go abroad pendente lite. 7 In his motion, petitioner stated that his presence in Louisiana, U.S.A. is needed in connection "with the obtention of foreign investment in Manotoc Securities, Inc." 8 He attached the letter dated August 9, 1984 of the chief executive officer of the Exploration Company of Louisiana, Inc., Mr. Marsden W. Miller 9 requesting his presence in the United States to "meet the people and companies who would be involved in its investments." Petitioner, likewise manifested that on August 1, 1984, Criminal Cases Nos. 4933 to 4936 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati (formerly Nos. 45542-45545) had been dismissed as to him "on motion of the prosecution on the ground that after verification of the records of the Securities and Exchange Commission ... (he) was not in any way connected with the Manotoc Securities, Inc. as of the date of the commission of the offenses imputed to him." 10 Criminal Cases Nos. 45399 and 45400 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, however, remained pending as Judge Camilon, when notified of the dismissal of the other cases against petitioner, instead of dismissing the cases before him, ordered merely the informations amended so as to delete the allegation that petitioner was president and to substitute that he was "controlling/majority stockholder,'' 11 of Manotoc Securities, Inc. On September 20, 1984, the Court in a resolution en banc denied petitioner's motion for leave to go abroad pendente lite. 12 Petitioner contends that having been admitted to bail as a matter of right, neither the courts which granted him bail nor the Securities and Exchange Commission which has no jurisdiction over his liberty, could prevent him from exercising his constitutional right to travel. Petitioner's contention is untenable. A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond. Rule 114, Section 1 of the Rules of Court defines bail as the security required and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of the law, that he will appear before any court in which his appearance may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance.

Its object is to relieve the accused of imprisonment and the state of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to put the accused as much under the power of the court as if he were in custody of the proper officer, and to secure the appearance of the accused so as to answer the call of the court and do what the law may require of him. 13 The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel. As we have held in People vs. Uy Tuising, 61 Phil. 404 (1935). ... the result of the obligation assumed by appellee (surety) to hold the accused amenable at all times to the orders and processes of the lower court, was to prohibit said accused from leaving the jurisdiction of the Philippines, because, otherwise, said orders and processes will be nugatory, and inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the courts from which they issued does not extend beyond that of the Philippines they would have no binding force outside of said jurisdiction. Indeed, if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts. The effect of a recognizance or bail bond, when fully executed or filed of record, and the prisoner released thereunder, is to transfer the custody of the accused from the public officials who have him in their charge to keepers of his own selection. Such custody has been regarded merely as a continuation of the original imprisonment. The sureties become invested with full authority over the person of the principal and have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the state. 14 If the sureties have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the state, more so then has the court from which the sureties merely derive such right, and whose jurisdiction over the person of the principal remains unaffected despite the grant of bail to the latter. In fact, this inherent right of the court is recognized by petitioner himself, notwithstanding his allegation that he is at total liberty to leave the country, for he would not have filed the motion for permission to leave the country in the first place, if it were otherwise. To support his contention, petitioner places reliance upon the then Court of Appeals' ruling in People vs. Shepherd (C.A.-G.R. No. 23505-R, February 13, 1980) particularly citing the following passage: ... The law obliges the bondsmen to produce the person of the appellants at the pleasure of the Court. ... The law does not limit such undertaking of the bondsmen as demandable only when the appellants are in the territorial confines of the Philippines and not demandable if the appellants are out of the country. Liberty, the most important consequence of bail, albeit provisional, is indivisible. If granted at all, liberty operates as fully within as without the boundaries of the granting state. This principle perhaps accounts for the absence of any law or jurisprudence expressly declaring that liberty under bail does not transcend the territorial boundaries of the country. The faith reposed by petitioner on the above-quoted opinion of the appellate court is misplaced. The rather broad and generalized statement suffers from a serious fallacy; for while there is, indeed, neither law nor jurisprudence expressly declaring that liberty under bail does not transcend the territorial boundaries of the country, it is not for the reason suggested by the appellate court. Also, petitioner's case is not on all fours with the Shepherd case. In the latter case, the accused was able to show the urgent necessity for her travel abroad, the duration thereof and the conforme of her sureties to the proposed travel thereby satisfying the court that she would comply with the conditions of her bail bond. in contrast, petitioner in this case has not satisfactorily shown any of the above. As aptly observed by the Solicitor General in his comment: A perusal of petitioner's 'Motion for Permission to Leave the Country' will show that it is solely predicated on petitioner's wish to travel to the United States where he will, allegedly attend to some business transactions and search for business opportunities. From the tenor and import of petitioner's motion, no urgent or compelling reason can be discerned to justify the grant of judicial imprimatur thereto. Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that there is absolute necessity for him to travel abroad. Petitioner's motion bears no indication that the alleged business transactions could not be undertaken by any other person in his behalf. Neither is there any hint that petitioner's absence from the United States would absolutely preclude him from taking advantage of business opportunities therein, nor is there any showing that petitioner's non-presence in the United States would cause him irreparable damage or prejudice. 15 Petitioner has not specified the duration of the proposed travel or shown that his surety has agreed to it. Petitioner merely alleges that his surety has agreed to his plans as he had posted cash indemnities. The court cannot allow the accused to leave the country without the assent of the surety because in accepting a bail bond or recognizance, the government impliedly agrees "that it will not take any proceedings with the principal that will increase the risks of the sureties or affect their remedies against him. Under this rule, the surety on a bail bond or recognizance may be discharged by a stipulation inconsistent with the conditions thereof, which is made without his assent. This result has been reached as to a stipulation or agreement to postpone the trial until after the final disposition of other cases, or to permit the principal to leave the state or country." 16 Thus, although the order of March 26, 1982 issued by Judge Pronove has been rendered moot and academic by the dismissal as to petitioner of the criminal cases pending before said judge, We see the rationale behind said order. As petitioner has failed to satisfy the trial courts and the appellate court of the urgency of his travel, the duration thereof, as well as the consent of his surety to the proposed travel, We find no abuse of judicial discretion in their having denied petitioner's motion for permission to leave the country, in much the same way, albeit with contrary results, that We found no reversible error to have been committed by the appellate court in allowing Shepherd to leave the country after it had satisfied itself that she would comply with the conditions of her bail bond. The constitutional right to travel being invoked by petitioner is not an absolute right. Section 5, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution states: The liberty of abode and of travel shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court, or when necessary in the interest of national security, public safety or public health. To our mind, the order of the trial court releasing petitioner on bail constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by the above-quoted constitutional provision. Finding the decision of the appellate court to be in accordance with law and jurisprudence, the Court finds that no gainful purpose will be served in discussing the other issues raised by petitioner. WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby dismissed, with costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-101 December 20, 1945 HAYDEE HERRAS TEEHANKEE, Petitioner, vs. LEOPOLDO ROVIRA, ANTONIO QUIRINO, and POMPEYO DIAZ,Respondents.virtual law library Petitioner Haydee Herras Teehankee is a political detainee delivered by the Counter Intelligence Corps, United States Army, to the Commonwealth Government, pursuant to the Proclamation of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, dated December 29, 1944. She was one of the petitioners in case No. L-44, "Raquiza vs. Bradford," of this court (p. 50, ante). She is now confined in the Correctional Institution for Women under the custody of the Commonwealth Government since October, 1945, when she was thus delivered to the said government.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Under the date of October 2, 1945, petitioner, through her husband, Alberto Teehankee, filed with the People's Court a petition wherein, invoking the provisions of Executive Order No. 65, promulgated by His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, dated September 3, 1945, she prayed that her immediate release be ordered on the ground that no evidence exists upon which she could be charged with any act punishable by law, or, alternatively, that the People's Court fix the bail for her provisional liberty, in conformity with the aforesaid executive order, and upon approval of such bail, that an order be forthwith issued directing then officer having official custody of her person to immediately release her.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library On October 4, 1945, the Hon. Antonio Quirino, one of the Associate Judges of the People's Court, upon considering the said petition, required the Solicitor General "to file his comment and recommendation as soon as possible." chanrobles virtual law library On October 5, 1945, the Solicitor General filed recommendation in compliance with said order, stating: "that on the strength of the evidence at hand, the reasonable basil recommended for the provisional release of the petitioner be fixed at Fifty Thousand Pesos (50,000)." chanrobles virtual law library On October 9, 1945, the Hon. Leopoldo Rovira, Presiding Judge of the People's Court, entered an order referring the petition for provisional release above mentioned for consideration by the Fifth Division of said Court, but adding the following statement: "in my opinion, it should be denied notwithstanding the recommendation of the Solicitor General for her provisional release under a bond of Fifty Thousand Pesos (50,000)." chanrobles virtual law library On the same date, October 9, 1945, the Hon. Pompeyo Diaz, Associate Judge of said Court, entered an order disposing of said petition and denying the same "in view of the gravity of the offense as can be deduced from the fact that the office of the Special Prosecutors recommends as high as Fifty Thousand Pesos (50,000) for her provisional release." chanrobles virtual law library A motion having been filed by petitioner with the People's Court praying said court to reconsider its order of October 9, 1945, denying her petition for provisional release the Court, through Associate Judge Pompeyo Diaz, denied said motion.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library In her present petition for the writs of certiorari and mandamus originally filed with this Court on October 19, 1945, petitioner avers that the above-mentioned Judges of the People's Court, in denying her petition for provisional liberty under bail, as well as her motion for reconsideration, acted in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. Paragraph VII of this petition contains her allegations in support of this charge.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Under the date of October 21, 1945, respondent Judge Pompeyo Diaz filed his answer stating that the order denying bail "was issued under express mandate of the law", citing section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 682.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Article III, section 1 (16) of the Commonwealth Constitution provides that:

All persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties, except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong. Excessive bail shall not be required. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides in the following sections: SEC. 3. Offenses less than capital before conviction by the Court of First Instance. - After judgement by a justice of the peace and before conviction by the court of First Instance, the defendant shall be admitted to bail as of right.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library SEC. 4. Noncapital offenses after conviction by the Court of First Instance. - After conviction by the Court of First Instance, defendant may, upon application, be bailed at the discretion of the court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library SEC. 5. Capital offenses defined. - A capital offense, as the term the time of its commission, and at the time of the application to be admitted to bail, may be punished by death.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library SEC. 6. Capital offense not bailable. - No person in custody for the commission of a capital offense shall be admitted to bail if the evidence of his guilt is strong.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library SEC. 7. Capital offenses - burden of proof. - On the hearing of an application for admission to bail made by any person who is in custody for the commission of a capital offense, the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong is on the prosecution.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library SEC. 8. Notice of application to fiscal. - When admission to bail is a matter of discretion, the court must require that reasonable notice of the hearing of the application for bail be given to the fiscal. Section 66 of General Orders, No. 58 stipulates: When admission to bail is a matter of discretion, the court must require that reasonable notice of the hearing of the application for bail be given to the promotor fiscal. Section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 682 contains the following proviso: SEC. 19. . . . Provided, however, That existing provisions of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the aforesaid political prisoners may, in the discretion of the People's Court, after due notice to the office of Special Prosecutors and hearing, be released on bail, even prior to the presentation of the corresponding information, unless the Court finds that there is strong evidence of the commission of a capital offense. . . . . Section 22 of Commonwealth Act No. 682 ordains: SEC. 22. The prosecution, trial and disposal of cases before the People's Court shall be governed by existing laws and rules of court, unless otherwise expressly provided herein . . . . Against the petitioner herein no information had yet been presented when she filed her petition dated October 2, 1945, containing the alternative prayer for the fixing of bail for her provisional liberty. She there invokes Executive Order No. 65 of the President of the Philippines, date September 3, 1945. The proviso above quoted from section 19 of the People's Court Act (Commonwealth At No. 682) also existed in the statute books at the time.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The able arguments adduced on both sides have received the most careful consideration of the Court as befits the importance of the questions involved. However, in the view we take of the case, a majority of the Court are of opinion that the only question calling for decision at this time are: (1) whether Article III, section 1 (16) of the Commonwealth Constitution is applicable to the instant case; (2) whether a hearing should be held of the application for bail with attendance of the petitioner and the Solicitor General or the latter's representative; and (3) if so, what kind of hearing it should be.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 1. As to the first question, we hold that Article III, section 1 (16) of the Commonwealth Constitution is applicable to the instant case. This Constitutional mandate refers to all persons, not only to persons against whom a complaint or information has already been formally filed. It lays down the rule that all persons shall before conviction be bailable except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong. According to this provision, the general rule is that any person, before being convicted of any criminal offense, shall be bailable, except when he is charged with a capital offense and the evidence of his guilt is strong. Of course, only those persons who have been either arrested, detained or otherwise deprived of their liberty will ever have occasion to seek the benefits of said provision. But in order that a person can invoke this constitutional precept, it is not necessary that he should wait until a formal complaint or information is filed against him. From the moment he is placed under arrest, detention or restraint by the officers of the law, he can claim this guarantee of the Bill of Rights, and this right he retains unless and until he is charged with a capital offense and evidence of his guilt is strong. Indeed if, as admitted on all sides, the precept protects those already charged under a formal complaint or information, there seems to be no legal or just reason for denying its benefits to one as against whom the proper authorities may even yet conclude that there exists no sufficient evidence of guilt. To place the former in a more favored position than the latter would be, to say the least, anomalous and absurd. If there is a presumption of innocence in favor of one already formally charged with criminal offense (Constitution, Article III, section 1[17], a fortiori, this presumption should be indulged in favor of one not yet so charged, although already arrested or detained.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library In Cooleys Constitutional Limitations, 7th edition, pages 436-438, we read the following: Perhaps the most important of the protections to personal liberty consists in the mode of trial which is secured to every person accused of crime. At the common law, accusations of felony were made in the form of an indictment by a grand jury; and this process is still retained in many of the States, while others have substituted in its stead an information filed by the prosecuting officer of the State or county. The mode of investigating the facts, however, is the same in all; and this is through a trial by jury, surrounded by certain safeguards which are a well-understood part of the system, and which the government cannot dispense with.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library First, we may mention that the humanity of our law always presumes an accused party innocent until he is proved to be guilty. This is a presumption which attends all the proceedings against him, from their initiation until they result in a verdict, which either finds the party guilty or converts the presumption of innocence into an adjudged fact.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library If there were any mode short of confinement which would, with reasonable certainty, insure the attendance of the accused to answer the accusation, it would not be justifiable to inflict upon him that indignity, when the effect is to subject him, in a greater or less degree, to the punishment of a guilty person, while as yet it is not determined that he has committed any crime. If the punishment on conviction cannot exceed in severity the forfeiture of a large sum of money, then it is reasonable to suppose that such a sum of money, or an agreement by responsible parties to pay it to the government in case the accused should fail to appear, would be sufficient security for his attendance; and therefore, at the common law, it was customary to take security of this character in all cases of misdemeanor; one or more friends of the accused undertaking for his appearance for trial, and agreeing that a certain sum of money should be levied of their goods and chattels, lands and tenements, if he made default. But in the case of felonies, the privilege of giving bail before trial was not a matter of right; and in this country, although the criminal code is much more merciful than it formerly was in England, and in some cases the allowance of bail is almost a matter of course, there are others in which it is discretionary with the magistrate to allow it or not, and where it will sometimes be refused if the evidence of guilty is strong or the presumption great. Capital offenses are not generally regarded as bailable; at least, after indictment, or when the party is charged by the finding of a coroner's jury; . . . ." All the Justice Cooley says in the foregoing quotations regarding the humanity of the law in his jurisdiction and its presumption that an accused party is innocent until he is proved to be guilty, is distinctly true also in ours where the constitutional, statutory, and reglementary provisions on the point have been borrowed from America. The same should be said of what he says regarding the granting of bail for provisional liberty before conviction, and even after, in exceptional cases, of course, always subject to the limitation established by our own Constitutional, laws and rules of court. From the last part of said quotation it follows, firstly, that before indictment or charge by the corner's jury, in the jurisdiction to which the author refers, there may be cases in which even a capital offense is bailable, and, secondly, that even after indictment or the finding of a corner's jury in these jurisdictions, there may be exceptional cases where a capital offense is still bailable. Under our Constitution, as we have seen, all offenses are bailable before conviction except capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong. In consonance with this constitutional provision, section 3 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court stipulates that non-capital offenses before conviction by the Court of First Instance shall be bailable as of right; section 4 of the same Rule provides that after conviction by the Court of First Instance such offense may, upon application, be bailable at the discretion of the court; and section 6 of the said Rule provides that "no person in custody for the commission of a capital offense shall be admitted to bail if the evidence of his guilt is strong." By the common law, all offenses including treason, murder, and other felonies, were bailable before indictment found, although the granting or refusing of such bail in case of capital offenses was a matter within the discretion of the court. (6 C. J., 953; emphasis supplied.) 2. As to the second question, we hold that upon application by a political prisoner or detainee to the People's Court for provisional release under bail, a hearing, summary or otherwise, should be held with due notice to the Office of Special Prosecutors, as well as to the prisoner or detainee. It will be remembered that section 22 of the People's Court Act subjects the prosecution, trial, and disposal of cases before the People's Court to existing laws and rules of court," unless otherwise expressly provide in said act. Consequently, the hearing and disposal of application for bail for provisional release before the People's Court should be governed by existing laws and rules of court, the hearing and disposal of such applications being a mere part of the "prosecution, trial, and disposal" of the corresponding cases before said court. If attention should be directed to the clause "unless otherwise expressly provided herein " in said section 22, in connection with the first proviso of section 19 of the same act, it should be borne in mind that the provisions of said act should be construed in harmony with those of the Constitution, under the well-settled rule of the statutory construction that legislative enactments should be construed, wherever possible, in manner that would avoid their conflicting with the fundamental law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

3. As to the third question. While it is true that the Solicitor General on October 3, 1945, recommended Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000) as a reasonable bail "on the strength of the evidence at hand," it may happen that thereafter his office may have secured additional evidence which in addition to or in connection with the already possessed, in his opinion is sufficiently strong to prove petitioner's guilt for a capital offense, in which case, he may yet decide to oppose the application for bail heretofore filed by petitioner at the hearing thereof hereinafter ordered. It will be remembered that petitioner, while under the custody of the Counter Intelligence Corps, United States Army, was charged with (a) "Active Collaboration with the Japanese" and (b) "Previous Association with the enemy" (Raquiza vs. Bradford, p. 50, ante). Under the definition of the treason in the Revised Penal Code, active collaboration with the Japanese and association with them during the war in the Philippines may constitute treason, a capital offense. ART. 114. Any person who, owing allegiance to the United States or the Government of the Philippine Islands, not being a foreigner, . . . adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed 20,000 pesos. (Revised Penal Code.) Of course, it may also happen that either because no such further evidence has come into his possession or because, in his judgement, the public interest would be better served by him withholding the evidence that he has until the trial in the merits, he would prefer not to oppose the application for bail. At the hearing of the application the Solicitor General will be free to adopt one course or the other. If he opposes, the burden of proof will be on him to show the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Petitioner will have the right to offer evidence to prove her right thereto. In fine, the hearing is for the purpose of enabling the People's Court to exercise its sound discretion as to whether or not under the Constitution and laws in force petitioner is entitled to provisional release under bail.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library WHEREFORE, it is the judgement of this Court that: (a) the order of the People's Court, dated October 9, 1945, denying petitioner's petition for provisional release under bail, and the order of said Court, dated October 13, 1945, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of said order of October 9, 1945, which we declare to have been entered with grave abuse of discretion, be set aside; and (b) that for the proper application of the pertinent constitutional, statutory, and reglementary provisions alluded to in the body of this decision, a hearing of the petitioner's application for bail be held before the People's Court with due notice to the Solicitor General, as well as to the petitioner, as hereinabove outlined, said hearing, whether summary or otherwise, to be such as would enable the People's Court to exercise its sound discretion in the disposal of the aforesaid petition. Without costs. So ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library G.R. No. 148571 September 24, 2002 GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Represented by the Philippine Department of Justice, petitioner, vs.HON. GUILLERMO PURGANAN, Presiding Judge Regional Trial Court of Manila and MARC JIMENEZ a.k.a. MARCIO BATACAN CRESPO, respondent In extradition proceedings, are prospective extraditees entitled to notice and hearing before warrants for their arrest can be issued? Equally important, are they entitled to the right to bail and provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending? In general, the answer to these two novel questions is "No." The explanation of and the reasons for, as well as the exceptions to, this rule are laid out in this Decision. The Case Before us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to void and set aside the Orders dated May 23, 2001 1 and July 3, 2001 2 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 42. 3The first assailed Order set for hearing petitioners application for the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of Respondent Mark B. Jimenez. The second challenged Order, on the other hand, directed the issuance of a warrant, but at the same time granted bail to Jimenez. The dispositive portion of the Order reads as follows: WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the [Court] finds probable cause against respondent Mark Jimenez. Accordingly let a Warrant for the arrest of the respondent be issued. Consequently and taking into consideration Section 9, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, this Court fixes the reasonable amount of bail for respondents temporary liberty at ONE MILLION PESOS (Php 1,000,000.00), the same to be paid in cash. Furthermore respondent is directed to immediately surrender to this Court his passport and the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation is likewise directed to include the name of the respondent in its Hold Departure List." 4 Essentially, the Petition prays for the lifting of the bail Order, the cancellation of the bond, and the taking of Jimenez into legal custody. The Facts This Petition is really a sequel to GR No. 139465 entitled Secretary of Justice v. Ralph C. Lantion. 5 Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, 6 the United States Government, through diplomatic channels, sent to the Philippine Government Note Verbale No. 0522 dated June 16, 1999, supplemented by Note Nos. 0597, 0720 and 0809 and accompanied by duly authenticated documents requesting the extradition of Mark B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo. Upon receipt of the Notes and documents, the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate action, pursuant to Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1069, also known as the Extradition Law. Upon learning of the request for his extradition, Jimenez sought and was granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by the RTC of Manila, Branch 25. 7 The TRO prohibited the Department of Justice (DOJ) from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition. The validity of the TRO was, however, assailed by the SOJ in a Petition before this Court in the said GR No. 139465. Initially, the Court -- by a vote of 9-6 -- dismissed the Petition. The SOJ 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. 8 Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the SOJ, this Court issued its October 17, 2000 Resolution. 9 By an identical vote of 9-6 -- after three justices changed their votes -- it reconsidered and reversed its earlier Decision. It held that private respondent was bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. This Resolution has become final and executory. 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 No. 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 April 15, 1999. The warrant had been issued in connection with the following charges in Indictment No. 99-00281 CR-SEITZ: (1) conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit certain offenses in violation of Title 18 US Code Section 371; (2) tax evasion, in violation of Title 26 US Code Section 7201; (3) wire fraud, in violation of Title 18 US Code Sections 1343 and 2; (4) false statements, in violation of Title 18 US Code Sections 1001 and 2; and (5) illegal campaign contributions, in violation of Title 2 US Code Sections 441b, 441f and 437g(d) and Title 18 US Code Section 2. In order to prevent the flight of Jimenez, the Petition prayed for the issuance of an order for his "immediate arrest" pursuant to Section 6 of PD No. 1069. Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Respondent Jimenez filed before it an "Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion," 10 which prayed that petitioners application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. In its assailed May 23, 2001 Order, the RTC granted the Motion of Jimenez and set the case for hearing on June 5, 2001. In that hearing, petitioner 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 June 15, 2001. Thereafter, the court below issued its questioned July 3, 2001 Order, directing the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at one million pesos in cash. 11 After he had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond, Jimenez was granted provisional liberty via the challenged Order dated July 4, 2001. 12 Hence, this Petition. 13 Issues Petitioner presents the following issues for the consideration of this Court: I. The public respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in adopting a procedure of first hearing a potential extraditee before issuing an arrest warrant under Section 6 of PD No. 1069. II. The public respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting the prayer for bail and in allowing Jimenez to go on provisional liberty because: 1. An extradition court has no power to authorize bail, in the absence of any law that provides for such power. 2. Section 13, Article III (right to bail clause) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and Section 4, Rule 114 (Bail) of the Rules of Court, as amended, which [were] relied upon, cannot be used as bases for allowing bail in extradition proceedings. 3. The presumption is against bail in extradition proceedings or proceedings leading to extradition.

4. On the assumption that bail is available in extradition proceedings or proceedings leading to extradition, bail is not a matter of right but only of discretion upon clear showing by the applicant of the existence of special circumstances. 5. Assuming that bail is a matter of discretion in extradition proceedings, the public respondent received no evidence of special circumstances which may justify release on bail. 6. The risk that Jimenez will flee is high, and no special circumstance exists that will engender a well-founded belief that he will not flee. 7. The conditions attached to the grant of bail are ineffectual and do not ensure compliance by the Philippines with its obligations under the RP-US Extradition Treaty. 8. The Court of Appeals Resolution promulgated on May 10, 2001 in the case entitled Eduardo T. Rodriguez et al. vs. The Hon. Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 17, Manila, CA-G.R. SP No. 64589, relied upon by the public respondent in granting bail, had been recalled before the issuance of the subject bail orders." 14 In sum, the substantive questions that this Court will address are: (1) whether Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant for his arrest can be issued, and (2) whether he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending. Preliminarily, we shall take up the alleged prematurity of the Petition for Certiorari arising from petitioners failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration in the RTC and to seek relief in the Court of Appeals (CA), instead of in this Court. 15 We shall also preliminarily discuss five extradition postulates that will guide us in disposing of the substantive issues. The Courts Ruling The Petition is meritorious. Preliminary Matters Alleged Prematurity of Present Petition Petitioner submits the following justifications for not filing a Motion for Reconsideration in the Extradition Court: "(1) the issues were fully considered by such court after requiring the parties to submit their respective memoranda and position papers on the matter and thus, the filing of a reconsideration motion would serve no useful purpose; (2) the assailed orders are a patent nullity, absent factual and legal basis therefor; and (3) the need for relief is extremely urgent, as the passage of sufficient time would give Jimenez ample opportunity to escape and avoid extradition; and (4) the issues raised are purely of law." 16 For resorting directly to this Court instead of the CA, petitioner submits the following reasons: "(1) even if the petition is lodged with the Court of Appeals and such appellate court takes cognizance of the issues and decides them, the parties would still bring the matter to this Honorable Court to have the issues resolved once and for all [and] to have a binding precedent that all lower courts ought to follow; (2) the Honorable Court of Appeals had in one case 17 ruled on the issue by disallowing bail but the court below refused to recognize the decision as a judicial guide and all other courts might likewise adopt the same attitude of refusal; and (3) there are pending issues on bail both in the extradition courts and the Court of Appeals, which, unless guided by the decision that this Honorable Court will render in this case, would resolve to grant bail in favor of the potential extraditees and would give them opportunity to flee and thus, cause adverse effect on the ability of the Philippines to comply with its obligations under existing extradition treaties." 18 As a general rule, a petition for certiorari before a higher court will not prosper unless the inferior court has been given, through a motion for reconsideration, a chance to correct the errors imputed to it. This rule, though, has certain exceptions: (1) when the issue raised is purely of law, (2) when public interest is involved, or (3) in case of urgency. 19 As a fourth exception, the Court has also ruled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration before availment of the remedy of certiorari is not a sine qua non, when the questions raised are the same as those that have already been squarely argued and exhaustively passed upon by the lower court. 20 Aside from being of this nature, the issues in the present case also involve pure questions of law that are of public interest. Hence, a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with. Likewise, this Court has allowed a direct invocation of its original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari when there are special and important reasons therefor. 21 In Fortich v. Corona 22 we stated: [T]he Supreme Court has the full discretionary power to take cognizance of the petition filed directly [before] it if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised, warrant. This has been the judicial policy to be observed and which has been reiterated in subsequent cases, namely: Uy vs. Contreras, et. al., Torres vs. Arranz, Bercero vs. De Guzman, and, Advincula vs. Legaspi, et. al. As we have further stated in Cuaresma: x x x. A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is established policy. x x x. Pursuant to said judicial policy, we resolve to take primary jurisdiction over the present petition in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations so as to promptly put an end to the present controversy which, as correctly observed by petitioners, has sparked national interest because of the magnitude of the problem created by the issuance of the assailed resolution. Moreover, x x x requiring the petitioners to file their petition first with the Court of Appeals would only result in a waste of time and money. That the Court has the power to set aside its own rules in the higher interests of justice is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence. We reiterate what we said in Piczon vs. Court of Appeals: 23 Be it remembered that rules of procedure are but mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be avoided. Time and again, this Court has suspended its own rules and excepted a particular case from their operation whenever the higher interests of justice so require. In the instant petition, we forego a lengthy disquisition of the proper procedure that should have been taken by the parties involved and proceed directly to the merits of the case. In a number of other exceptional cases, 24 we held as follows: This Court has original jurisdiction, concurrent with that of Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals, over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus, and we entertain direct resort to us in cases where special and important reasons or exceptional and compelling circumstances justify the same." In the interest of justice and to settle once and for all the important issue of bail in extradition proceedings, we deem it best to take cognizance of the present case. Such proceedings constitute a matter of first impression over which there is, as yet, no local jurisprudence to guide lower courts. Five Postulates of Extradition The substantive issues raised in this case require an interpretation or construction of the treaty and the law on extradition. A cardinal rule in the interpretation of a treaty or a law is to ascertain and give effect to its intent. 25Since PD 1069 is intended as a guide for the implementation of extradition treaties to which the Philippines is a signatory, 26 understanding certain postulates of extradition will aid us in properly deciding the issues raised here. 1. Extradition Is a Major Instrument for the Suppression of Crime. First, extradition treaties are entered into for the purpose of suppressing crime 27 by facilitating the arrest and the custodial transfer 28 of a fugitive 29 from one state to the other. With the advent of easier and faster means of international travel, the flight of affluent criminals from one country to another for the purpose of committing crime and evading prosecution has become more frequent. Accordingly, governments are adjusting their methods of dealing with criminals and crimes that transcend international boundaries. Today, "a majority of nations in the world community have come to look upon extradition as the major effective instrument of international co-operation in the suppression of crime." 30 It is the only regular system that has been devised to return fugitives to the jurisdiction of a court competent to try them in accordance with municipal and international law. 31 An important practical effect x x x of the recognition of the principle that criminals should be restored to a jurisdiction competent to try and punish them is that the number of criminals seeking refuge abroad will be reduced. For to the extent that efficient means of detection and the threat of punishment play a significant role in the deterrence of crime within the territorial limits of a State, so the existence of effective extradition arrangements and the consequent certainty of return to the locus delicti commissi play a corresponding role in the deterrence of flight abroad in order to escape the consequence of crime. x x x. From an absence of extradition arrangements flight abroad by the ingenious criminal receives direct encouragement and thus indirectly does the commission of crime itself." 32 In Secretary v. Lantion 33 we explained: The Philippines also has a national interest to help in suppressing crimes and one way to do it is to facilitate the extradition of persons covered by treaties duly entered [into] by our government. More and more, crimes are becoming the concern of one world. Laws involving crimes and crime prevention are undergoing universalization. One manifest purpose of this trend towards globalization is to deny easy refuge to a criminal whose activities threaten the peace and progress of civilized countries. It is to the great interest of the Philippines to be part of this irreversible movement in light of its vulnerability to crimes, especially transnational crimes." Indeed, in this era of globalization, easier and faster international travel, and an expanding ring of international crimes and criminals, we cannot afford to be an isolationist state. We need to cooperate with other states in order to improve our chances of suppressing crime in our own country. 2. The Requesting State Will Accord Due Process to the Accused

Second, an extradition treaty presupposes that both parties thereto have examined, and that both accept and trust, each others legal system and judicial process. 34 More pointedly, our duly authorized representatives signature on an extradition treaty signifies our confidence in the capacity and the willingness of the other state to protect the basic rights of the person sought to be extradited. 35 That signature signifies our full faith that the accused will be given, upon extradition to the requesting state, all relevant and basic rights in the criminal proceedings that will take place therein; otherwise, the treaty would not have been signed, or would have been directly attacked for its unconstitutionality. 3. The Proceedings Are Sui Generis Third, as pointed out in Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, 36 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. xxxxxxxxx There are other differences between an extradition proceeding and a criminal proceeding. An extradition proceeding is summary in nature while criminal proceedings involve a full-blown trial. In contradistinction to a criminal proceeding, the rules of evidence in an extradition proceeding allow admission of evidence under less stringent standards. In terms of the quantum of evidence to be satisfied, a criminal case requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for conviction while a fugitive may be ordered extradited upon showing of the existence of a prima facie case. Finally, unlike in a criminal case where judgment becomes executory upon being rendered final, in an extradition proceeding, our courts may adjudge an individual extraditable but the President has the final discretion to extradite him. The United States adheres to a similar practice whereby the Secretary of State exercises wide discretion in balancing the equities of the case and the demands of the nations foreign relations before making the ultimate decision to extradite." Given the foregoing, it is evident that the extradition court is not called upon to ascertain the guilt or the innocence of the person sought to be extradited. 37 Such determination during the extradition proceedings will only result in needless duplication and delay. Extradition is merely a measure of international judicial assistance through which a person charged with or convicted of a crime is restored to a jurisdiction with the best claim to try that person. It is not part of the function of the assisting authorities to enter into questions that are the prerogative of that jurisdiction. 38 The ultimate purpose of extradition proceedings in court is only to determine whether the extradition request complies with the Extradition Treaty, and whether the person sought is extraditable. 39 4. Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith. Fourth, our executive branch of government voluntarily entered into the Extradition Treaty, and our legislative branch ratified it. Hence, the Treaty carries the presumption that its implementation will serve the national interest. Fulfilling our obligations under the Extradition Treaty promotes comity 40 with the requesting state. On the other hand, failure to fulfill our obligations thereunder paints a bad image of our country before the world community. Such failure would discourage other states from entering into treaties with us, particularly an extradition treaty that hinges on reciprocity. 41 Verily, we are bound by pacta sunt servanda to comply in good faith with our obligations under the Treaty. 42 This principle requires that we deliver the accused to the requesting country if the conditions precedent to extradition, as set forth in the Treaty, are satisfied. In other words, "[t]he demanding government, when it has done all that the treaty and the law require it to do, is entitled to the delivery of the accused on the issue of the proper warrant, and the other government is under obligation to make the surrender." 43 Accordingly, the Philippines must be ready and in a position to deliver the accused, should it be found proper. 5. There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight Fifth, persons to be extradited are presumed to be flight risks. This prima facie presumption finds reinforcement in the experience 44 of the executive branch: nothing short of confinement can ensure that the accused will not flee the jurisdiction of the requested state in order to thwart their extradition to the requesting state. The present extradition case further validates the premise that persons sought to be extradited have a propensity to flee. Indeed, extradition hearings would not even begin, if only the accused were willing to submit to trial in the requesting country. 45 Prior acts of herein respondent -- (1) leaving the requesting state right before the conclusion of his indictment proceedings there; and (2) remaining in the requested state despite learning that the requesting state is seeking his return and that the crimes he is charged with are bailable -- eloquently speak of his aversion to the processes in the requesting state, as well as his predisposition to avoid them at all cost. These circumstances point to an ever-present, underlying high risk of flight. He has demonstrated that he has the capacity and the will to flee. Having fled once, what is there to stop him, given sufficient opportunity, from fleeing a second time? First Substantive Issue: Is Respondent Entitled to Notice and Hearing Before the Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest? Petitioner contends that the procedure adopted by the RTC --informing the accused, a fugitive from justice, that an Extradition Petition has been filed against him, and that petitioner is seeking his arrest -- gives him notice to escape and to avoid extradition. Moreover, petitioner pleads that such procedure may set a dangerous precedent, in that those sought to be extradited -- including terrorists, mass murderers and war criminals -- may invoke it in future extradition cases. On the other hand, Respondent Jimenez argues that he should not be hurriedly and arbitrarily deprived of his constitutional right to liberty without due process. He further asserts that there is as yet no specific law or rule setting forth the procedure prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest, after the petition for extradition has been filed in court; ergo, the formulation of that procedure is within the discretion of the presiding judge. Both parties cite Section 6 of PD 1069 in support of their arguments. It states: SEC. 6. Issuance of Summons; Temporary Arrest; Hearing, Service of Notices.- (1) Immediately upon receipt of the petition, the presiding judge of the court shall, as soon as practicable, summon the accused to appear and to answer the petition on the day and hour fixed in the order. [H]e may issue a warrant for the immediate arrest of the accused which may be served any where within the Philippines if it appears to the presiding judge that the immediate arrest and temporary detention of the accused will best serve the ends of justice. Upon receipt of the answer, or should the accused after having received the summons fail to answer within the time fixed, the presiding judge shall hear the case or set another date for the hearing thereof. (2) The order and notice as well as a copy of the warrant of arrest, if issued, shall be promptly served each upon the accused and the attorney having charge of the case." (Emphasis ours) Does this provision sanction RTC Judge Purganans act of immediately setting for hearing the issuance of a warrant of arrest? We rule in the negative. 1. On the Basis of the Extradition Law It is significant to note that Section 6 of PD 1069, our Extradition Law, uses the word "immediate" to qualify the arrest of the accused. This qualification would be rendered nugatory by setting for hearing the issuance of the arrest warrant. Hearing entails sending notices to the opposing parties, 46 receiving facts and arguments 47 from them, 48 and giving them time to prepare and present such facts and arguments. Arrest subsequent to a hearing can no longer be considered "immediate." The law could not have intended the word as a mere superfluity but, on the whole, as a means of imparting a sense of urgency and swiftness in the determination of whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. By using the phrase "if it appears," the law further conveys that accuracy is not as important as speed at such early stage. The trial court is not expected to make an exhaustive determination to ferret out the true and actual situation, immediately upon the filing of the petition. From the knowledge and the material then available to it, the court is expected merely to get a good first impression -- a prima facie finding -- sufficient to make a speedy initial determination as regards the arrest and detention of the accused. Attached to the Petition for Extradition, with a Certificate of Authentication among others, were the following: (1) Annex H, the Affidavit executed on May 26, 1999 by Mr. Michael E. Savage -- trial attorney in the Campaign Financing Task Force of the Criminal Division of the US Department of Justice; (2) Annexes H to G, evidentiary Appendices of various exhibits that constituted evidence of the crimes charged in the Indictment, with Exhibits 1 to 120 (duly authenticated exhibits that constituted evidence of the crimes charged in the Indictment); (3) Annex BB, the Exhibit I "Appendix of Witness [excerpts] Statements Referenced in the Affidavit of Angela Byers" and enclosed Statements in two volumes; (4) Annex GG, the Exhibit J "Table of Contents for Supplemental Evidentiary Appendix" with enclosed Exhibits 121 to 132; and (5) Annex MM, the Exhibit L "Appendix of Witness [excerpts] Statements Referenced in the Affidavit of Betty Steward" and enclosed Statements in two volumes. 49 It is evident that respondent judge could have already gotten an impression from these records adequate for him to make an initial determination of whether the accused was someone who should immediately be arrested in order to "best serve the ends of justice." He could have determined whether such facts and circumstances existed as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that the extradition request was prima facie meritorious. In point of fact, he actually concluded from these supporting documents that "probable cause" did exist. In the second questioned Order, he stated:

In the instant petition, the documents sent by the US Government in support of [its] request for extradition of herein respondent are enough to convince the Court of the existence of probable cause to proceed with the hearing against the extraditee." 50 We stress that the prima facie existence of probable cause for hearing the petition and, a priori, for issuing an arrest warrant was already evident from the Petition itself and its supporting documents. Hence, after having already determined therefrom that a prima facie finding did exist, respondent judge gravely abused his discretion when he set the matter for hearing upon motion of Jimenez. 51 Moreover, the law specifies that the court sets a hearing upon receipt of the answer or upon failure of the accused to answer after receiving the summons. In connection with the matter of immediate arrest, however, the word "hearing" is notably absent from the provision. Evidently, had the holding of a hearing at that stage been intended, the law could have easily so provided. It also bears emphasizing at this point that extradition proceedings are summary 52 in nature. Hence, the silence of the Law and the Treaty leans to the more reasonable interpretation that there is no intention to punctuate with a hearing every little step in the entire proceedings. It is taken for granted that the contracting parties intend something reasonable and something not inconsistent with generally recognized principles of International Law, nor with previous treaty obligations towards third States. If, therefore, the meaning of a treaty is ambiguous, the reasonable meaning is to be preferred to the unreasonable, the more reasonable to the less reasonable x x x ." 53 Verily, as argued by petitioner, sending to persons sought to be extradited a notice of the request for their arrest and setting it for hearing at some future date would give them ample opportunity to prepare and execute an escape. Neither the Treaty nor the Law could have intended that consequence, for the very purpose of both would have been defeated by the escape of the accused from the requested state. 2. On the Basis of the Constitution Even Section 2 of Article III of our Constitution, which is invoked by Jimenez, does not require a notice or a hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest. It provides: Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants, the Constitution itself requires only the examination -- under oath or affirmation -- of complainants and the witnesses they may produce. There is no requirement to notify and hear the accused before the issuance of warrants of arrest. In Ho v. People 54 and in all the cases cited therein, never was a judge required to go to the extent of conducting a hearing just for the purpose of personally determining probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. All we required was that the "judge must have sufficient supporting documents upon which to make his independent judgment, or at the very least, upon which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause." 55 In Webb v. De Leon, 56 the Court categorically stated that a judge was not supposed to conduct a hearing before issuing a warrant of arrest: Again, we stress that before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine personally the probability, not the certainty of guilt of an accused. In doing so, judges do not conduct a de novo hearing to determine the existence of probable cause. They just personally review the initial determination of the prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidence." At most, in cases of clear insufficiency of evidence on record, judges merely further examine complainants and their witnesses. 57 In the present case, validating the act of respondent judge and instituting the practice of hearing the accused and his witnesses at this early stage would be discordant with the rationale for the entire system. If the accused were allowed to be heard and necessarily to present evidence during the prima facie determination for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, what would stop him from presenting his entire plethora of defenses at this stage -- if he so desires -- in his effort to negate a prima facie finding? Such a procedure could convert the determination of a prima facie case into a full-blown trial of the entire proceedings and possibly make trial of the main case superfluous. This scenario is also anathema to the summary nature of extraditions. That the case under consideration is an extradition and not a criminal action is not sufficient to justify the adoption of a set of procedures more protective of the accused. If a different procedure were called for at all, a more restrictive one -- not the opposite -- would be justified in view of respondents demonstrated predisposition to flee. Since this is a matter of first impression, we deem it wise to restate the proper procedure: Upon receipt of a petition for extradition and its supporting documents, the judge must study them and make, as soon as possible, a prima facie finding whether (a) they are sufficient in form and substance, (b) they show compliance with the Extradition Treaty and Law, and (c) the person sought is extraditable. At his discretion, the judge may require the submission of further documentation or may personally examine the affiants and witnesses of the petitioner. If, in spite of this study and examination, no prima facie finding 58 is possible, the petition may be dismissed at the discretion of the judge. On the other hand, if the presence of a prima facie case is determined, then the magistrate must immediately issue a warrant for the arrest of the extraditee, who is at the same time summoned to answer the petition and to appear at scheduled summary hearings. Prior to the issuance of the warrant, the judge must not inform or notify the potential extraditee of the pendency of the petition, lest the latter be given the opportunity to escape and frustrate the proceedings. In our opinion, the foregoing procedure will "best serve the ends of justice" in extradition cases. Second Substantive Issue: Is Respondent Entitled to Bail? Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution, is worded as follows: Art. III, Sec. 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required." Respondent Mark B. Jimenez maintains that this constitutional provision secures the right to bail of all persons, including those sought to be extradited. Supposedly, the only exceptions are the ones charged with offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua, when evidence of guilt is strong. He also alleges the relevance to the present case of Section 4 59 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court which, insofar as practicable and consistent with the summary nature of extradition proceedings, shall also apply according to Section 9 of PD 1069. On the other hand, petitioner claims that there is no provision in the Philippine Constitution granting the right to bail to a person who is the subject of an extradition request and arrest warrant. Extradition Different from Ordinary Criminal Proceedings We agree 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. Moreover, 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." 60 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. 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. It must be noted that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus finds application "only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion." 61 Hence, the second sentence in the constitutional provision on bail merely emphasizes the right to bail in criminal proceedings for the aforementioned offenses. It cannot be taken to mean that the right is available even in extradition proceedings that are not criminal in nature. That the offenses for which Jimenez is sought to be extradited are bailable in the United States is not an argument to grant him one in the present case. To stress, extradition proceedings are separate and distinct from the trial for the offenses for which he is charged. He should apply for bail before the courts trying the criminal cases against him, not before the extradition court. No Violation of Due Process Respondent Jimenez cites the foreign case Paretti 62 in arguing that, constitutionally, "[n]o one shall be deprived of x x x liberty x x x without due process of law." Contrary to his contention, his detention prior to the conclusion of the extradition proceedings does not amount to a violation of his right to due process. We iterate the familiar doctrine that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard 63 but, at the same time, point out that the doctrine does not always call for a prior

opportunity to be heard. 64 Where the circumstances -- such as those present in an extradition case -- call for it, a subsequent opportunity to be heard is enough. 65 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. Contrary to the contention of Jimenez, we find no arbitrariness, either, in the immediate deprivation of his liberty prior to his being heard. That his arrest and detention will not be arbitrary is sufficiently ensured by (1) the DOJs filing in court the Petition with its supporting documents after a determination that the extradition request meets the requirements of the law and the relevant treaty; (2) the extradition judges independent prima facie determination that his arrest will best serve the ends of justice before the issuance of a warrant for his arrest; and (3) his opportunity, once he is under the courts custody, to apply for bail as an exception to the noinitial-bail rule. It is also worth noting that before the US government requested the extradition of respondent, proceedings had already been conducted in that country. But because he left the jurisdiction of the requesting state before those proceedings could be completed, it was hindered from continuing with the due processes prescribed under its laws. His invocation of due process now has thus become hollow. He already had that opportunity in the requesting state; yet, instead of taking it, he ran away. In this light, would it be proper and just for the government to increase the risk of violating its treaty obligations in order to accord Respondent Jimenez his personal liberty in the span of time that it takes to resolve the Petition for Extradition? His supposed immediate deprivation of liberty without the due process that he had previously shunned pales against the governments interest in fulfilling its Extradition Treaty obligations and in cooperating with the world community in the suppression of crime. Indeed, "[c]onstitutional liberties do not exist in a vacuum; the due process rights accorded to individuals must be carefully balanced against exigent and palpable government interests." 66 Too, 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 are able to 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.1wphi1.nt The denial of bail as a matter of course in extradition cases falls into place with and gives life to Article 14 67of the Treaty, since this practice would encourage the accused to voluntarily surrender to the requesting state to cut short their detention here. Likewise, their detention pending the resolution of extradition proceedings would fall into place with the emphasis of the Extradition Law on the summary nature of extradition cases and the need for their speedy disposition. Exceptions to the No Bail Rule The rule, we repeat, is that bail is not a matter of right in extradition cases. However, the judiciary has the constitutional duty to curb grave abuse of discretion 68 and tyranny, as well as the power to promulgate rules to protect and enforce constitutional rights. 69 Furthermore, we believe that the right to due process is broad enough to include the grant of basic fairness to extraditees. Indeed, the right to due process extends to the "life, liberty or property" of every person. It is "dynamic and resilient, adaptable to every situation calling for its application." 70 Accordingly and to best serve the ends of justice, we believe and so hold that, after a potential extraditee has been arrested or placed under the custody of the law, bail may be applied for and granted as an exception, only upon a clear and convincing showing (1) that, once granted bail, the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2) that there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances 71 including, as a matter of reciprocity, those cited by the highest court in the requesting state when it grants provisional liberty in extradition cases therein. Since this exception has no express or specific statutory basis, and since it is derived essentially from general principles of justice and fairness, the applicant bears the burden of proving the above two-tiered requirement with clarity, precision and emphatic forcefulness. The Court realizes that extradition is basically an executive, not a judicial, responsibility arising from the presidential power to conduct foreign relations. In its barest concept, it partakes of the nature of police assistance amongst states, which is not normally a judicial prerogative. Hence, any intrusion by the courts into the exercise of this power should be characterized by caution, so that the vital international and bilateral interests of our country will not be unreasonably impeded or compromised. In short, while this Court is ever protective of "the sporting idea of fair play," it also recognizes the limits of its own prerogatives and the need to fulfill international obligations. Along this line, Jimenez contends that there are special circumstances that are compelling enough for the Court to grant his request for provisional release on bail. We have carefully examined these circumstances and shall now discuss them. 1. Alleged Disenfranchisement While his extradition was pending, Respondent Jimenez was elected as a member of the House of Representatives. On that basis, he claims that his detention will disenfranchise his Manila district of 600,000 residents. We are not persuaded. In People v. Jalosjos, 72 the Court has already debunked the disenfranchisement argument when it ruled thus: When the voters of his district elected the accused-appellant to Congress, they did so with full awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action. They did so with the knowledge that he could achieve only such legislative results which he could accomplish within the confines of prison. To give a more drastic illustration, if voters elect a person with full knowledge that he is suffering from a terminal illness, they do so knowing that at any time, he may no longer serve his full term in office. In the ultimate analysis, the issue before us boils down to a question of constitutional equal protection. The Constitution guarantees: x x x nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of laws. This simply means that all persons similarly situated shall be treated alike both in rights enjoyed and responsibilities imposed. The organs of government may not show any undue favoritism or hostility to any person. Neither partiality nor prejudice shall be displayed. Does being an elective official result in a substantial distinction that allows different treatment? Is being a Congressman a substantial differentiation which removes the accused-appellant as a prisoner from the same class as all persons validly confined under law? The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly [from] prison. The duties imposed by the mandate of the people are multifarious. The accused-appellant asserts that the duty to legislate ranks highest in the hierarchy of government. The accusedappellant is only one of 250 members of the House of Representatives, not to mention the 24 members of the Senate, charged with the duties of legislation. Congress continues to function well in the physical absence of one or a few of its members. Depending on the exigency of Government that has to be addressed, the President or the Supreme Court can also be deemed the highest for that particular duty. The importance of a function depends on the need for its exercise. The duty of a mother to nurse her infant is most compelling under the law of nature. A doctor with unique skills has the duty to save the lives of those with a particular affliction. An elective governor has to serve provincial constituents. A police officer must maintain peace and order. Never has the call of a particular duty lifted a prisoner into a different classification from those others who are validly restrained by law. A strict scrutiny of classifications is essential lest[,] wittingly or otherwise, insidious discriminations are made in favor of or against groups or types of individuals. The Court cannot validate badges of inequality. The necessities imposed by public welfare may justify exercise of government authority to regulate even if thereby certain groups may plausibly assert that their interests are disregarded. We, therefore, find that election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement. The functions and duties of the office are not substantial distinctions which lift him from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of movement. Lawful arrest and confinement are germane to the purposes of the law and apply to all those belonging to the same class." 73 It must be noted that even before private respondent ran for and won a congressional seat in Manila, it was already of public knowledge that the United States was requesting his extradition. Hence, his constituents were or should have been prepared for the consequences of the extradition case against their representative, including his detention pending the final resolution of the case. Premises considered and in line with Jalosjos, we are constrained to rule against his claim that his election to public office is by itself a compelling reason to grant him bail. 2. Anticipated Delay Respondent Jimenez further contends that because the extradition proceedings are lengthy, it would be unfair to confine him during the pendency of the case. Again we are not convinced. We must emphasize that extradition cases are summary in nature. They are resorted to merely to determine whether the extradition petition and its annexes conform to the Extradition Treaty, not to determine guilt or innocence. Neither is it, as a rule, intended to address issues relevant to the constitutional rights available to the accused in a criminal action. We are not overruling the possibility that petitioner may, in bad faith, unduly delay the proceedings. This is quite another matter that is not at issue here. Thus, any further discussion of this point would be merely anticipatory and academic. However, if the delay is due to maneuverings of respondent, with all the more reason would the grant of bail not be justified. Giving premium to delay by considering it as a special circumstance for the grant of bail would be tantamount to giving him the power to grant bail to himself. It would also encourage him to stretch out and unreasonably delay the extradition proceedings even more. This we cannot allow. 3. Not a Flight Risk?

Jimenez further claims that he is not a flight risk. To support this claim, he stresses that he learned of the extradition request in June 1999; yet, he has not fled the country. True, he has not actually fled during the preliminary stages of the request for his extradition. Yet, this fact cannot be taken to mean that he will not flee as the process moves forward to its conclusion, as he hears the footsteps of the requesting government inching closer and closer. That he has not yet fled from the Philippines cannot be taken to mean that he will stand his ground and still be within reach of our government if and when it matters; that is, upon the resolution of the Petition for Extradition. In any event, it is settled that bail may be applied for and granted by the trial court at anytime after the applicant has been taken into custody and prior to judgment, even after bail has been previously denied. In the present case, the extradition court may continue hearing evidence on the application for bail, which may be granted in accordance with the guidelines in this Decision. Brief Refutation of Dissents The proposal to remand this case to the extradition court, we believe, is totally unnecessary; in fact, it is a cop-out. The parties -- in particular, Respondent Jimenez -- have been given more than sufficient opportunity both by the trial court and this Court to discuss fully and exhaustively private respondents claim to bail. As already stated, the RTC set for hearing not only petitioners application for an arrest warrant, but also private respondents prayer for temporary liberty. Thereafter required by the RTC were memoranda on the arrest, then position papers on the application for bail, both of which were separately filed by the parties. This Court has meticulously pored over the Petition, the Comment, the Reply, the lengthy Memoranda and the Position Papers of both parties. Additionally, it has patiently heard them in Oral Arguments, a procedure not normally observed in the great majority of cases in this Tribunal. Moreover, after the Memos had been submitted, the parties -- particularly the potential extraditee -- have bombarded this Court with additional pleadings -- entitled "Manifestations" by both parties and "Counter-Manifestation" by private respondent -- in which the main topic was Mr. Jimenezs plea for bail. A remand would mean that this long, tedious process would be repeated in its entirety. The trial court would again hear factual and evidentiary matters. Be it noted, however, that, in all his voluminous pleadings and verbal propositions, private respondent has not asked for a remand. Evidently, even he realizes that there is absolutely no need to rehear factual matters. Indeed, the inadequacy lies not in the factual presentation of Mr. Jimenez. Rather, it lies in his legal arguments. Remanding the case will not solve this utter lack of persuasion and strength in his legal reasoning. In short, this Court -- as shown by this Decision and the spirited Concurring, Separate and Dissenting Opinions written by the learned justices themselves -- has exhaustively deliberated and carefully passed upon all relevant questions in this case. Thus, a remand will not serve any useful purpose; it will only further delay these already very delayed proceedings, 74 which our Extradition Law requires to be summary in character. What we need now is prudent and deliberate speed, not unnecessary and convoluted delay. What is needed is a firm decision on the merits, not a circuitous cop-out. Then, there is also the suggestion that this Court is allegedly "disregarding basic freedoms when a case is one of extradition." We believe that this charge is not only baseless, but also unfair. Suffice it to say that, in its length and breath, this Decision has taken special cognizance of the rights to due process and fundamental fairness of potential extraditees. Summation As we draw to a close, it is now time to summarize and stress these ten points: 1. The ultimate purpose of extradition proceedings is to determine whether the request expressed in the petition, supported by its annexes and the evidence that may be adduced during the hearing of the petition, complies with the Extradition Treaty and Law; and whether the person sought is extraditable. The proceedings are intended merely to assist the requesting state in bringing the accused -- or the fugitive who has illegally escaped -- back to its territory, so that the criminal process may proceed therein. 2. By entering into an extradition treaty, the Philippines is deemed to have reposed its trust in the reliability or soundness of the legal and judicial system of its treaty partner, as well as in the ability and the willingness of the latter to grant basic rights to the accused in the pending criminal case therein. 3. By nature then, extradition proceedings are not equivalent to a criminal case in which guilt or innocence is determined. Consequently, an extradition case is not one in which the constitutional rights of the accused are necessarily available. It is more akin, if at all, to a courts request to police authorities for the arrest of the accused who is at large or has escaped detention or jumped bail. Having once escaped the jurisdiction of the requesting state, the reasonable prima facie presumption is that the person would escape again if given the opportunity. 4. Immediately upon receipt of the petition for extradition and its supporting documents, the judge shall make a prima facie finding whether the petition is sufficient in form and substance, whether it complies with the Extradition Treaty and Law, and whether the person sought is extraditable. The magistrate has discretion to require the petitioner to submit further documentation, or to personally examine the affiants or witnesses. If convinced that a prima facie case exists, the judge immediately issues a warrant for the arrest of the potential extraditee and summons him or her to answer and to appear at scheduled hearings on the petition. 5. After being taken into custody, potential extraditees may apply for bail. Since the applicants have a history of absconding, they have the burden of showing that (a) there is no flight risk and no danger to the community; and (b) there exist special, humanitarian or compelling circumstances. The grounds used by the highest court in the requesting state for the grant of bail therein may be considered, under the principle of reciprocity as a special circumstance. In extradition cases, bail is not a matter of right; it is subject to judicial discretion in the context of the peculiar facts of each case. 6. Potential extraditees are entitled to the rights to due process and to fundamental fairness. Due process does not always call for a prior opportunity to be heard. A subsequent opportunity is sufficient due to the flight risk involved. Indeed, available during the hearings on the petition and the answer is the full chance to be heard and to enjoy fundamental fairness that is compatible with the summary nature of extradition. 7. This Court will always remain a protector of human rights, a bastion of liberty, a bulwark of democracy and the conscience of society. But it is also well aware of the limitations of its authority and of the need for respect for the prerogatives of the other co-equal and co-independent organs of government. 8. We realize that extradition is essentially an executive, not a judicial, responsibility arising out of the presidential power to conduct foreign relations and to implement treaties. Thus, the Executive Department of government has broad discretion in its duty and power of implementation. 9. On the other hand, courts merely perform oversight functions and exercise review authority to prevent or excise grave abuse and tyranny. They should not allow contortions, delays and "over-due process" every little step of the way, lest these summary extradition proceedings become not only inutile but also sources of international embarrassment due to our inability to comply in good faith with a treaty partners simple request to return a fugitive. Worse, our country should not be converted into a dubious haven where fugitives and escapees can unreasonably delay, mummify, mock, frustrate, checkmate and defeat the quest for bilateral justice and international cooperation. 10. At bottom, extradition proceedings should be conducted with all deliberate speed to determine compliance with the Extradition Treaty and Law; and, while safeguarding basic individual rights, to avoid the legalistic contortions, delays and technicalities that may negate that purpose. WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed RTC Order dated May 23, 2001 is hereby declared NULL and VOID, while the challenged Order dated July 3, 2001 is SET ASIDE insofar as it granted bail to Respondent Mark Jimenez. The bail bond posted by private respondent is CANCELLED. The Regional Trial Court of Manila is directed to conduct the extradition proceedings before it, with all deliberate speed pursuant to the spirit and the letter of our Extradition Treaty with the United States as well as our Extradition Law. No costs.

SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 141529 June 6, 2001 FRANCISCO YAP, JR., aka EDWIN YAP, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. GONZAGA-REYES, J.: The right against excessive bail, and the liberty of abode and travel, are being invoked to set aside two resolutions of the Court of Appeals which fixed bail at P5,500,000.00 and imposed conditions on change of residence and travel abroad. For misappropriating amounts equivalent to P5,500,000.00, petitioner was convicted of estafa by the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City1 and was sentenced to four years and two months of prision correctional, as minimum to eight years of prision mayor as maximum, "in addition to one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00 but in no case shall it exceed twenty (20) years."2 He filed a notice of appeal, and moved to be allowed provisional liberty under the cash bond he had filed earlier in the proceedings. The motion was denied by the trial court in an order dated February 17,1999. After the records of the case were transmitted to the Court of Appeals, petitioner filed with the said court a Motion to Fix Bail For the Provisional Liberty of Accused Appellant Pending Appeal, invoking the last paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court. Asked to comment on this motion, the Solicitor General opined that petitioner may be allowed to post bail in the amount of P5,500,000.00 and be required to secure "a certification/guaranty from the Mayor of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that he will remain to be so until final judgment is rendered or in case he transfers residence, it must be with

prior notice to the court and private complainant."3 Petitioner filed a Reply, contending that the proposed bail ofP5,500,000.00 was violative of his right against excessive bail. The assailed resolution of the Court of Appeals4, issued on October 6, 1999, upheld the recommendation of the Solicitor General; thus, its dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the "Motion to Fix Bail For Provisional Liberty of Accused-Appellant Pending Appeal" is hereby GRANTED. Accused-appellant Francisco Yap, Jr., a.k.a. Edwin Yap is hereby ALLOWED TO POST BAIL in the amount of Five Million Five Hundred Thousand (P5,500,000.00) Pesos, subject to the following conditions, viz. : (1) He (accused-appellant) secures a certification/guaranty from the Mayor of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that he will remain to be a resident therein until final judgment is rendered or in case he transfers residence, it must be with prior notice to the court; (2) The Commission of lmmigration and Deportation (CID) is hereby directed to issue a hold departure order against accused-appellant; and (3) The accused-appellant shall forthwith surrender his passport to the Division Clerk of Court for safekeeping until the court orders its return; (4) Any violation of the aforesaid conditions shall cause the forfeiture of accused-appellant's bail bond, the dismissal of appeal and his immediate arrest and confinement in jail. SO ORDERED.5 A motion for reconsideration was filed, seeking the reduction of the amount of bail fixed by respondent court, but was denied in a resolution issued on November 25, 1999. Hence, this petition. Petitioner sets out the following assignments of error: The respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in fixing the bail of the provisional liberty of petitioner pending appeal in the amount of P5 .5 million. The respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in basing the bail for the provisional liberty of the petitioner on his civil liability. The respondent Court of Appeals unduly restricted petitioner's constitutional liberty of abode and travel in imposing the other conditions for the grant of bail. Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals, by setting bail at a prohibitory amount, effectively denied him his right to bail. He challenges the legal basis of respondent court for fixing bail at P5,500,000.00, which is equivalent to the amount of his civil liability to private complainant Manila Mahogany Marketing Corporation, and argues that the Rules of Court never intended for the civil liability of the accused to be a guideline or basis for determining the amount of bail. He prays that bail be reduced to at least P40,000.00, citing the maximum amount of bail that can be posted for the crime of estafa under the 1996 Bail Bond Guide, or P20,000.00, equivalent to the amount of bail he posted during the trial of the case.6 On the other hand, the Solicitor General maintains that no grave abuse of discretion could be ascribed to the Court of Appeals for fixing the amount of bail at P5,500,000.00 considering the severity of the penalty imposed, the weight of the evidence against petitioner, and the gravity of the offense of which petitioner was convicted by the RTC. He asserted that the P5,500,000.00 not only corresponded to civil liability but also to the amount of fraud imputed to petitioner. The Solicitor General further pointed out the probability of flight in case petitioner is released on bail, it having been established that petitioner was in possession of a valid passport and visa and had in fact left the country several times during the course of the proceedings in the lower court. It was also shown that petitioner used different names in his business transactions and had several abodes in different parts of the country. As for the conditions imposed by the bail bond, the Solicitor General advanced that all that the Court of Appeals requires is notice in case of change of address; it does not in any way impair petitioner's right to change abode for as long as the court is apprised of his change of residence during the pendency of the appeal. Petitioner's case falls within the provisions of Section 5, Rule 114 of the 1997 Rules of Court which states: SEC. 5. Bail, when discretionary. -- Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the court, on application, may admit the accused to bail. The court, in its discretion, may allow the accused to continue on provisional liberty under the same bail bond during the period to appeal subject to the consent of the bondsman. If the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, but not more than twenty (20) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail previously granted shall be cancelled, upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar circumstances: (a) That the accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration; (b) That the accused is found to have previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or has violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification; (c) That the accused committed the offense while on probation, parole, or under conditional pardon; (d) That the circumstances of the accused or his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or (e) That there is undue risk that during the pendency of the appeal, the accused may commit another crime. The appellate court may review the resolution of the Regional Trial Court, on motion and with notice to the adverse party.7 There is no question that in the present case the Court of Appeals exercised its discretion in favor of allowing bail to petitioner on appeal. Respondent court stated that it was doing so for "humanitarian reasons", and despite a perceived high risk of flight, as by petitioner's admission he went out of the country several times during the pendency of the case, for which reason the court deemed it necessary to peg the amount of bail at P5,500,000.00. The prohibition against requiring excessive bail is enshrined in the Constitution.8 The obvious rationale, as declared in the leading case of De la Camara vs. Enage,9 is that imposing bail in an excessive amount could render meaningless the right to bail. Thus, in Villaseor vs. Abano,10 this Court made the pronouncement that it will not hesitate to exercise its supervisory powers over lower courts should the latter, after holding the accused entitled to bail, effectively deny the same by imposing a prohibitory sum or exacting unreasonable conditions. xxx There is grim irony in an accused being told that he has a right to bail but at the same time being required to post such an exorbitant sum. What aggravates the situation is that the lower court judge would apparently yield to the command of the fundamental law. In reality, such a sanctimonious avowal of respect for a mandate of the Constitution was on a purely verbal level. There is reason to believe that any person in the position of petitioner would under the circumstances be unable to resist thoughts of escaping from confinement, reduced as he must have been to a state of desperation. In the same breath as he was told he could be bailed out, the excessive amount required could only mean that provisional liberty would be beyond his reach. It would have been more forthright if he were informed categorically that such a right could not be availed of. There would have been no disappointment of expectations then. It does call to mind these words of Justice Jackson, "a promise to the ear to be broken to the hope, a teasing illusion like a munificent bequest in a pauper's will." XXX11 At the same time, Section 9, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure advises courts to consider the following factors in the setting of the amount of bail: (a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail; (b) Nature and circumstances of the offense; (c) Penalty for the offense charged; (d) Character and reputation of the accused; (e) Age and health of the accused; (f) Weight of the evidence against the accused; (g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial; (h) Forfeiture of other bail; (i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and (j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail. Thus, the court has wide latitude in fixing the amount of bail. Where it fears that the accused may jump bail, it is certainly not precluded from installing devices to ensure against the same. Options may include increasing the bail bond to an appropriate level, or requiring the person to report periodically to the court and to make an accounting of his movements.12 In the present case, where petitioner was found to have left the country several times while the case was pending, the Court of Appeals required the confiscation of his passport and the issuance of a hold-departure order against him. Under the circumstances of this case, we find that appropriate conditions have been imposed in the bail bond to ensure against the risk of flight, particularly, the combination of the hold-departure order and the requirement that petitioner inform the court of any change of residence and of his whereabouts. Although an increase in the amount of bail while the case is on appeal may be meritorious, we find that the setting of the amount at P5,500,000.00 is unreasonable, excessive, and constitutes an effective denial of petitioner's right to bail. The purpose for bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial,13 or whenever so required by the Court14. The amount should be high enough to assure the presence of the accused when required but no higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose.15 To fix bail at an amount equivalent to the civil liability of which petitioner is charged (in this case, P5,500,000.00).is to permit the impression that the amount paid as bail is an exaction of the civil liability that accused is charged of; this we cannot allow because bail is not intended as a punishment, nor as a satisfaction of civil liability which should necessarily await the judgment of the appellate court.

At the same time, we cannot yield to petitioner's submission that bail in the instant case be set at P40,000.00 based on the 1996 Bail Bond Guide. (The current Bail Bond Guide, issued on August 29, 2000, maintains recommended bail at P40,000.00 for estafa where the amount of fraud is P142,000.00 or over and the imposable penalty 20 years of reclusion temporal). True, the Court has held that the Bail Bond Guide, a circular of the Department of Justice for the guidance of state prosecutors, although technically not binding upon the courts, "merits attention, being in a sense an expression of policy of the Executive Branch, through the Department of Justice, in the enforcement of criminal laws."16 Thus, courts are advised that they must not only be aware but should also consider the Bail Bond Guide due to its significance in the administration of criminal justice.17 This notwithstanding, the Court is not precluded from imposing in petitioner's case an amount higher than P40,000.00 (based on the Bail Bond Guide) where it perceives that an appropriate increase is dictated by the circumstances. It militates emphasis that petitioner is seeking bail on appeal. Section 5, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is clear that although the grant of bail on appeal is non-capital offenses is discretionary, when the penalty imposed on the convicted accused exceeds six years and circumstances exist that point to the probability of flight if released on bail, then the accused must be denied bail, or his bail previously granted should be cancelled.18 In the same vein, the Court has held that the discretion to extend bail during the course of the appeal should be exercised with grave caution and for strong reasons, considering that the accused had been in fact convicted by the trial court.19 In an earlier case, the Court adopted Senator Vicente J. Francisco's disquisition on why bail should be denied after judgment of conviction as a matter of wise discretion; thus: The importance attached to conviction is due to the underlying principle that bail should be granted only where it is uncertain whether the accused is guilty or innocent, and therefore, where that uncertainty is removed by conviction it would, generally speaking, be absurd to admit to bail. After a person has been tried and convicted the presumption of innocence which may be relied upon in prior applications is rebutted, and the burden is upon the accused to show error in the conviction. From another point of view it may be properly argued that the probability of ultimate punishment is so enhanced by the conviction that the accused is much more likely to attempt to escape if liberated on bail than before conviction.xxx20 Petitioner is seeking bail on appeal. He was in fact declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the RTC, and due to the serious amount of fraud involved, sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years --the maximum penalty for estafa by false pretenses or fraudulent acts allowed by the Revised Penal Code. Although it cannot be controverted that the Court of Appeals, despite the foregoing considerations and the possibility of flight still wielded its discretion to grant petitioner bail, the setting of bail in the amount of P5,500,000.00 is unjustified as having no legal nor factual basis. Guided by the penalty imposed by the lower court and the weight of the evidence against petitioner, we believe that the amount of P200,000.00 is more reasonable. Petitioner also contests the condition imposed by the Court of Appeals that he secure "a certification/guaranty from the Mayor of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that he will remain to be a resident therein until final judgment is rendered or in case he transfers residence, it must be with prior notice to the court", claiming that the same violates his liberty of abode and travel. Notably, petitioner does not question the hold-departure order which prevents him from leaving the Philippines unless expressly permitted by the court which issued the order.21 In fact, the petition submits that "the hold-departure order against petitioner is already sufficient guarantee that he will not escape. Thus, to require him to inform the court every time he changed his residence is already unnecessary."22 The right to change abode and travel within the Philippines, being invoked by petitioner, are not absolute rights. Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution states: The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. The order of the Court of Appeals releasing petitioner on bail constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by the above provision.23 The condition imposed by the Court of Appeals is simply consistent with the nature and function of a bail bond, which is to ensure that petitioner will make himself available at all times whenever the Court requires his presence. Besides, a closer look at the questioned condition will show that petitioner is not prevented from changing abode; he is merely required to inform the court in case he does so. WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Petitioner's bail pending appeal is reduced from P5,500,000.00 to P200,000.00. In all other respects, the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, dated October 6, 1999 and November 25, 1999, respectively, are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. 1wphi1.nt [A.M. No. MTJ-01-1369. September 20, 2001] GUILLERMA D. CABAERO, complainant, vs. JUDGE ANTONIO K. CAON, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, HINATUAN-TAGBINA, HINATUAN, SURIGAO DEL SUR, respondent. RESOLUTION PARDO, J.: Death of the respondent in an administrative case is not in itself a ground for the dismissal of the complaint. In a complaint dated September 16, 1999, Mrs. Guillerma D. Cabaero charged Judge Antonio K. Caon, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Hinatuan-Tagbina, at Hinatuan, Surigao Del Sur with partiality, issuance of unjust interlocutory orders and grave abuse of discretion relative to Criminal Case No. 4036-H, entitled, People vs. Jessie Cabaero, for qualified theft. Complainant alleged that a certain Jaime Caal accused her son, Jessie D. Cabaero, of entering Caals farmland and harvesting falcata trees valued at P3,191.00. The chief of police filed the case[1] with the 7th MCTC Hinatuan-Tagbina, with station at Hinatuan, Surigao del Sur, presided over by Judge Antonio K. Caon. Respondent Judge conducted a preliminary investigation of the case to determine probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Complainant alleged that respondent judge exhibited bias and partiality by asking leading questions to implicate her as co-accused in the criminal case. On October 1, 1998, Judge Caon issued a warrant of arrest not only against Jessie Cabaero but also against complainant Guillerma D. Cabaero for covering up for her son. On October 15, 1998, policemen arrested the complainant and detained her at the Hinatuan Municipal Jail. To secure her temporary liberty, she posted bail, which could not be issued and approved in her name because she was not an accused in Criminal Case No. 4036-H. Respondent judge pegged the bail at thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00). On October 16, 1998, complainant was released. Incidentally, on October 7, 1998, when her son was arrested, he also posted bail amounting to P30,000.00. She alleged that considering the value of the property allegedly stolen, the bail required was excessive. Respondent judge explained that complainant was a principal by inducement and that the arrest of the complainant was based on his findings. On April 24, 2000, respondent judge died. The cessation from office of respondent judge due to death does not per se warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint filed against him while he was still in the service.[2] Since the instant administrative complaint was filed before respondents death on April 24, 2000, the Court retains authority to pursue the administrative complaint against him. Regarding the charge of partiality, we have set the parameters in disqualifying a judge as follows: (1) that there be adequate evidence to prove the charge; (2) that there be showing that the judge had an interest, personal or otherwise, in the prosecution of the case at bar; and (3) that to be disqualified, the bias and prejudice must have stemmed from an extra-judicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case.[3] There is nothing in the complaint that sustains the charge of bias and partiality. Mere suspicion that the judge is biased in a case will not suffice. As to the interlocutory orders, the remedy of the complainant is judicial, not administrative. He could have raised the issues in the judicial proceedings. As to the charge of grave abuse of discretion, we find the charge meritorious. Respondent judge erred in ordering the arrest of the accused and complainant Guillerma D. Cabaero. She was not included as one of the respondents in the criminal case filed by the chief of police of Hinatuan. Respondent judge was aware of this fact. The judge explained that he had discretion to add names of respondents in the complaint filed by the police investigator as well as to determine the degree of their participation whether as principal by participation or inducement or as accomplice. We find respondents interpretation of his powers under the Revised Rules of Court far-fetched. Respondent judge imposed excessive bail. Under Department Circular No. 4, the 1996 Bail Bond Guide for the National Prosecution Service for the offense of qualified theft, if the value of the property stolen is more than P200.00 but does not exceed P6,000.00, the bail recommended is P24,000.00. In the instant case, the monetary value of the falcata trees cut into logs is P3,1991.40. The bail of P30,000 is not proportionate to the amount stolen. When the law transgressed is elementary, the failure to know or observe it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.[4] The Court cannot permit any act or omission which yanks public faith away from the judiciary. That is why, despite respondents death, we sanction his acts. Judges are expected to be competent and qualified for the position to which they were appointed.[5] To be able to render substantial justice and to maintain public confidence in the legal system, judges must keep abreast of all laws and prevailing jurisprudence, consistent with the standard that magistrates must be the embodiments of competence, integrity and independence.[6] WHEREFORE, Judge Antonio K. Caon is hereby ordered to pay a FINE in the amount of P5,000.00, to be taken from his retirement benefits in view of his demise.