RIGHT TO BAIL!BAIL (Section 1, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure) - is the surety for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required under the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance.!!I. EXTRADITION!

A. GOV’T OF THE USA VS PURGANAN!FACTS:!

Mark Jimenez has been charged of certain offenses in the United States, which include the following: to defraud the US, tax evasion, wire fraud, false statements and illegal campaign distributions. !!Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the US Government, in representation of SOJ requested for the extradition of the Accused herein. !!Upon learning of the request for his extradition, he sought and was granted by RTC of Manila TRO. The TRO prohibited the DOJ for filing with the RTC of Manila a petition for his extradition. Initially the petition was dismissed. !!Acting for motion for reconsideration file by the SOJ, and after three justices reversed their voted, it reconsidered and reversed the earlier decision. !!Finding no more obstacle the US Government thru DOJ filed with the RTC the appropriate extradition. Before the RTC accused filed an Urgent Manifestation/ Ex Parte Motion which prayed that petitioner’s application for an arrest warrant be set on hearing. After the hearing, the court required 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 a bail in the amount of P100, 000.!!

ISSUE:!Whether or not an extraditee is entitled to post a bail. !!

HELD:!No. Supposedly, the only exceptions are the ones charged with offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, when evidence of guilt is strong. This, however does not apply to extradition proceedings, because extradition courts does 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 be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It follows that the constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a case like extradition, where the presumption of innocence is not an issue. !!

B. GOV’T OF HONGKONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION VS HON. OLALIA!FACTS:!

Respondent Muñoz was charged of 3 counts of offenses of “accepting an advantage as agent”, and 7 counts of conspiracy to defraud, punishable by the common law of Hongkong. The Hongkong Department of Justice requested DOJ for the provisional arrest of respondent Muñoz; the DOJ forward the request to the NBI then to RTC. On the same day, NBI agents arrested him.!

!Respondent filed with the CA a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with application for preliminary mandatory injunction and writ of habeas corpus questioning the validity of the order of arrest. !!The CA declared the arrest void. Hence this petition by the Hongkong Department of Justice thru DOJ. !!DOJ filed a petition for certiorari in this Court and sustained the validity of the arrest. !!Hongkong Administrative Region then filed in the RTC petition for extradition and arrest of respondent. Meanwhile, respondent filed a petition for bail, which was opposed by the petitioner, initially the RTC denied the petition holding that there is no Philippine Law granting bail in extradition cases and that private responded is a “flight risk”. !Motion for reconsideration was filed by the respondent, which was granted. Hence this petition.!!

ISSUE:!Whether or not right to bail can be avail in extradition cases.!!

HELD:!In Purganan case, the right to bail was not included in the extradition cases, since it is available only in criminal proceedings. !!However the Supreme Court, recognized the following trends in International Law. !

1. The growing importance of the individual person in publican international law who, in the 20th century attained global recognition.!

2. The higher value now being given in human rights in international sphere!

3. The corresponding duty of countries to observe these human rights in fulfilling their treaty obligations !

4. The of duty of this court to balance the rights of the individual under our fundamental law, on one hand, and the law on extradition on the other. !!

The modern trend in the public international law is the primacy placed on the sanctity of human rights. !!Enshrined the Constitution “The state values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.” The Philippines therefore, has the responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of every person to liberty and due process, ensuring that those detained or arrested can participate in the proceeding before the a court, to enable it to decide without delay on the legality of the detention and order their release if justified.!!Examination of this Court in the doctrines provided for in the US Vs Purganan provide the following.!

1. The exercise of the State’s police power to deprive a person of his liberty is not limited to criminal proceedings.!

2. To limit the right to bail in the criminal proceeding would be to close our eyes to jurisprudential history. Philippines has not limited the exercise of the right to bail to

criminal proceedings only. This Court has admitted to bail persons who are not involved in criminal proceedings. In fact, bail has been involved in this jurisdiction to persons in detention during the tendency of administrative proceedings, taking into cognizance the obligation of the Philippines under international conventions to uphold human rights. !!

EXTRADITION, is defined as the removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting state or government to hold him in connection with criminal investigation directed against him or execution of a penalty imposed on him under the penal and criminal law of the requesting state or government. Thus characterized as the right of the a foreign power, created by treaty to demand the surrender of one accused or convicted of a crimes within its territorial jurisdiction, and the correlative obligation of the other state to surrender him to the demanding state. !!The extradited may be subject to detention as may be necessary step in the process of extradition, but the length of time in the detention should be reasonable. !!In the case at bar, the record show that the respondent, Muñoz has been detained for 2 years without being convicted in Hongkong.!!The Philippines has the obligation of ensuring the individual his right to liberty and due process and should not therefor deprive the extraditee of his right to bail PROVIDED that certain standards for the grant is satisfactorily met. In other words there should be “CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE”. !!However in the case at bar, the respondent was not able to show and clear and convincing evidence that he be entitled to bail. Thus the case is remanded in the court for the determination and otherwise, should order the cancellation of his bond and his immediate detention. !

!II.! DEPORTATION!

GO VS RAMOS!FACTS:!

This case arose when Ramos, respondent herein filed for the deportation of Go, the petitioner herein alleging that he is an illegal and undesirable alien. Respondent herein contends that thru falsification, Jimmy Go was able to conceal his true citizenship and was able to secure a passport from DFA. !!Jimmy in return, averred that Luis filed a deportation case against him as a harassment case designed to oust him of his rightful share in their business dealings. Jimmy said that his father is a Filipino when the latter elected Philippine Citizenship in accordance with Article IV Section 1 Paragraph 4 of the 1935 Constitution and Commonwealth Act No 625, as evidence by his having taken the Oath of Allegiance on 1950 and having executed an Affidavit of Election of the Philippine Citizenship on July 1950. !!Regarding with the erroneous entry in his birth certificate that he is FChinese, he maintained that such was not of his own doing, but may be attributed to the employees of the Local Civil Registrar who might have relied on his Chinese sounding surname.!!The NBI which was tasked to investigate the election of Jimmy’s father on citizenship dismissed the petition for deportation of Jimmy.!

!While the Board of Commissioners reversed said dismissal holding that the election of Philippine Citizenship was made out of time, thus ordering the preparation for the deportation of Jimmy. !!

ISSUE:!Whether or not Jimmy, after the deportation order has been issued can still invoke his right to bail.!!

HELD:!No. Under the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, the power to grant bail can only be exercised while the alien is still under investigation, and not when the order of deportation had already been issued by the Board.