Government of the United States of America v. Jimenez

Posted Sep 24, 2002

By Anonymous

7 min read

Case Title and Citation

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.
G.R. No. 148571, September 24, 2002
Supreme Court - En Banc
Ponente: Justice Antonio T. Panganiban

Facts

The United States government, under the RP–US Extradition Treaty, requested the extradition of Mark B. Jimenez (a.k.a. Marcio Batacan Crespo) by Note Verbale No. 0522 dated June 16, 1999, supplemented by subsequent notes and authenticated documents. The request was transmitted through the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Justice for action under PD No. 1069 (Extradition Law). The documents included an Indictment in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida charging Jimenez with conspiracy to defraud, tax evasion, wire fraud, false statements, and unlawful campaign contributions.
Jimenez learned of the extradition request and obtained a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) from the RTC of Manila, Branch 25, which prohibited filing for extradition. The DOJ sought relief in GR No. 139465; the Supreme Court previously decided on October 17, 2000 that a private respondent is not entitled to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of extradition, a ruling later affirmed in that case.
On May 18, 2001, the DOJ filed a Petition for Extradition in the RTC (Extradition Case No. 01192061). The RTC granted Jimenez’s Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion to set the arrest warrant for hearing and later, on July 3, 2001, issued a warrant for arrest and fixed bail at Php 1,000,000 cash, with surrender of his passport and Hold Departure List (HDL) actions.
Jimenez posted the cash bond and obtained provisional liberty; the DOJ sought to lift the bail and cancel the bond and to take Jimenez into custody. The RTC’s May 23, 2001 order was contested; the July 3, 2001 order was contested for granting bail.
The petition raises two substantive questions: (1) whether Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant for arrest is issued; (2) whether he is entitled to bail and provisional liberty during extradition proceedings. The court also outlined five postulates guiding extradition: extradition as a major crime-suppression instrument, due process by the requesting state, extradition as sui generis, good-faith compliance, and flight risk.

Issues

Is Jimenez entitled to notice and hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest?
Is Jimenez entitled to bail and provisional liberty during the pendency of the extradition proceedings?

Ruling

No — The court held that the extradition law (PD 1069) uses the word “immediate” to qualify arrest and envisions a prima facie, speedy initial determination; a hearing prior to the issuance of an arrest warrant would render the “immediate” arrest nugatory. The Constitution does not require notice or hearing to determine probable cause for an arrest warrant in this context, and extradition proceedings are sui generis and summary in nature.
No — Bail is not a matter of right in extradition proceedings. The Constitution’s right to bail applies to criminal proceedings, and the Rules of Court provide bail as a matter of right before conviction in ordinary criminal cases. Extradition is not a criminal proceeding; however, the court recognized exceptions — bail may be granted after arrest only upon a clear and convincing showing that the extraditee will not be a flight risk and that there exist special, humanitarian, or compelling circumstances (including reciprocity with the requesting state). In this case, the Court set aside the bail order.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

Extradition is a major instrument to suppress crime and involves returning fugitives to the demanding state under treaties, with the Philippines obliged to act in good faith (pacta sunt servanda). The proceedings are not criminal; a finding of guilt or innocence occurs in the requesting state, not in the extradition court.
The extradition process is sui generis: it is a form of international judicial assistance, not a determination of guilt; evidence standards are more flexible (prima facie) than in criminal trials; the President retains final discretion to extradite.
The five postulates: (1) extradition assists in suppressing crime; (2) due process is expected in the requesting state, not in the extradition court; (3) extradition proceedings are sui generis and not fully criminal; (4) compliance must be in good faith; (5) there is an underlying risk of flight, justifying swift action and restraint.
Preliminary determination: Upon receipt of the petition and supporting documents, a judge must determine whether a prima facie case exists and whether the petition complies with treaty and law. If so, a warrant may be issued; waiting for a hearing before issuing a warrant would defeat the urgency intended by the statute.
On bail: The constitutional right to bail arises in criminal proceedings; extradition proceedings do not automatically grant bail. However, in light of due process and international treaty considerations, bail may be granted after arrest only if there is clear and convincing evidence that the extraditee will not flee and that there exist special circumstances. The majority rejected a blanket denial of bail, but ultimately voided the RTC’s bail order in this case, directing the extradition proceedings to proceed with speed and in accordance with treaty obligations.
Due process argument: While the extraditee has the right to due process, the Court balanced this against the state’s treaty obligations and the public interest in preventing flight and ensuring timely surrender.
The case also discusses that the right to bail in deportation and extradition matters has been recognized in other jurisdictions and by some splits in Philippine jurisprudence, but that the controlling decision did not establish an unconditional right to bail in extradition matters.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

Extradition proceedings are sui generis and not criminal; the rights at issue differ from ordinary criminal proceedings.
A prima facie finding suffices to sustain an arrest warrant, and immediate arrest is prioritized to prevent flight.
Bail in extradition matters is not a matter of right and requires a higher standard (clear and convincing evidence) that the extraditee will not flee and that compelling circumstances exist; exceptions may apply, including reciprocity and humanitarian considerations.
Pacta sunt servanda and good-faith compliance with extradition treaties are mandatory considerations in all actions.
The judiciary may exercise discretion to ensure procedural safeguards, but not to the point of unduly delaying international cooperation.

Disposition

The petition is GRANTED.
The May 23, 2001 RTC order directing issuance of a warrant for arrest is declared NULL and VOID.
The July 3, 2001 RTC order, which granted bail, is SET ASIDE; the bail bond posted by the private respondent is CANCELLED.
The Regional Trial Court of Manila is directed to conduct the extradition proceedings with all deliberate speed pursuant to the Extradition Treaty and Extradition Law.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

Separate Opinion Bel You Sil-lo, J. (Bel-losillo) — Advocated that the case be remanded to the extradition court to ensure proper safeguards and that the bail standard should be more protective; questioned the blanket denial of notice/hearing and suggested balancing rights with treaty obligations.
Dissenting / Separate Opinions by Justice Puno (and others) — Argued for a more expansive view of due process in extradition and for considering higher or broader protections for the extraditee, including a framework to allow bail under clearly defined, heightened safeguards; urged remand for proper consideration of the bail issue and for quicker, fair handling of the case.
The majority’s position was that no general right to notice/hearing prior to arrest, and no automatic right to bail; however, there was room for exceptional relief under strict standards.

Significance / Notes

This decision is a landmark for Philippine extradition jurisprudence, clarifying that extradition proceedings are not criminal proceedings and that a formal pre-arrest notice/hearing is not required before an arrest warrant based on prima facie evidence may issue.
It establishes a framework balancing international obligations with constitutional rights, including a potential but not guaranteed right to bail in extradition cases, subject to strict standards.
It introduces the five postulates of extradition and emphasizes the need for expedition and good-faith compliance to maintain treaty relationships and international cooperation in crime suppression.
The decision clarifies that the ultimate determination to extradite remains with the President, and that the judiciary’s role is to ensure compliance with treaty requirements while protecting individual rights to the extent compatible with the extradition process.

Constitutional Law Remedial Law Criminal Procedure

This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.