[consti 2 digest] 132- govt of usa vs judge purganan

Government of USA vs Purganan G.R. No. 148 571. September 24, 2002 Facts: This Petition is really a sequel to GR No. 139465 entitled Secretary of Justice v. Ralph C. Lantion where the court held that Jimenez was bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. Finding no more legal obstacle, the Government of the United States of America, represented by the Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC on 18 May 2001, the appropria te Petit ion for Extraditi on which was dock eted as Extradition Case 01192061. The Petition alleged, inter alia, that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on 15 April 1999. Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Jimenez filed before it an "Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion," which prayed that Jimenez’s application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. In its 23 May 2001 Order, the RTC granted the Motion of Jimenez and set the case for hearing on 5 June 2001. In that hearing, Jimene z mani feste d its reser vati ons on the procedur e 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 Jimene z was also set for hearing on 15 June 2001. Thereafter, the court below issued its 3 July 2001 Order, directing the issuance of warrant for his arrest and fixing bail f or his temporary liberty at P1 million in cash. After he had surrendered his passport and posted the req uir ed cas h bond, Jime nez was gra nte d pro vis ion al libert y via the challenged Order dated 4 July 2001. Hence, this petition. Issues: 1.Whe ther Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant for his arrest can be issued 2. Whether he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending Held: 1. No. To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants, the Con sti tut ion itself req uir es onl y the exa minati on -- und er oat h 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. At most, in cases of clear insuff icien cy of evid ence on record, judges merely further examine complainants and their witne sses. In the present case, validating the act of respondent judge and instituting the practice of hearing the accused and his witnesse s at thi s ear ly stage wou ld be discordan t 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 proce dure could convert the determination of a prima facie case into a full-blown trial of the entire proceedings and possibly make tria l of the main cas e supe rfluou s. This scenar io is also anat hema to the summary nature of extraditions. ***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 whet her (a) they are sufficien t in form and substa nce, (b) they show compliance with the Extradition Treaty and Law, and (c) the person sou ght is ext raditable. At his discretion, the jud ge may requir e the submission of furth er documentation or may personally examine the affiants and witnesses of the petitioner. If, in spite of this study and exa minat ion, no prima facie finding is pos sible, the petit ion 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 sche duled summa ry hearings. Prior to the issua nce 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 procee dings. In our opinion, the foregoing procedure will “best serve the ends of justice” in extradition cases.*** 2. No. Extr aditi on case s are different from ordin ary criminal proc eedin gs. The constitutional right to bail “flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt.” It follows that the constitutional provision on bail will not appl y to a case like extrad ition , where the presumption of innocence is not at issue.

[consti 2 digest] 132- govt of usa vs judge purganan

Documents