US vs Purganan

Special Civil Action in SC.

Petition for Certiorari

Facts:
US/DOJ Petitioner:
● The petitioner requested the extradition of Mark Jimenez pursuant to Section 5 of PD
No. 1069 also known as extradition law.
● The validity of the TRO was assailed by the SOJ in a petition in SC.
● The petitioner filed with the RTC the appropriate Petition for Extradition, the petition
allege that Jimenez was a subject of an arrest warrant issued by the US District Court.
● 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 warrant
of arrest.

Jimenez/Respondent:
● He sought and was granted a TRO by the RTC of Manila. The TRO prohibited the DOJ
from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition. But it was dismissed and it was
reversed because it held that private respondent was bereft of the right to notice and
hearing during the evaluation stage of extradition process.
● Respondent filed before RTC an Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion which prayed
that petitioner’s application for arrest of warrant be set for hearing.
● RTC granted the motion of Jimenez
● Respondent sought an alternative prayer that in case a warrant should issue, he be
allowed to post bail in the amount of 100,000.

RTC issued its order, directing the issuance of a warrant of Jimenez’ arrest and fixing bail for his
temporary liberty at one million pesos in cash. He was granted provisional liberty after
surrendering his passport.

ISSUE:
● Whether or NOT Hon. Purganan 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
● Whether or NOT there is a violation of due process

HELD:

YES. ​The constitutional provision on bail on Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution, 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. In extradition, 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” finds application “only to persons judicially
charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.”

NO. ​Potential extraditees are entitled to the rights to due process and to fundamental fairness. The
doctrine of right to due process and fundamental fairness does not always call for a prior opportunity
to be heard. A subsequent opportunity to be heard is enough. He will be given full opportunity to
be heard subsequently, when the extradition court hears the Petition for Extradition. 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.

It is also worth noting that before the US government requested the extradition of respondent,
proceedings had already been conducted in that country. He already had that opportunity in the
requesting state; yet, instead of taking it, he ran away.