Rodriguez vs Presiding Judge

483 Scra 290 (2006)

FACTS:
After the arrest of petitioners Eduardo Tolentino Rodriguez and Imelda Gener Rodriguez,
they applied for bail which the trial court granted on September 25, 2001. They posted cash bonds
for the bail set for P1M for each. The US government moved for reconsideration of the grant of bail
which was denied. The US government filed a petition for certiorari entitled Govt of the USA v. Hon.
Ponferrada where the court directed the trial court to resolve the matter of bail guided by this courts
ruling on Government of the USA v. Hon. Purganan. The lower court, without prior notice and
hearing, cancelled the cash bond of the petitioners and ordered the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
Petitioners filed a very urgent motion for the reconsideration of the cancellation of their bail which
was denied. Hence, this special civilaction for certiorari and prohibition directed against the order for
cancellation of cash bond and issuance of a warrant of arrest.
ISSUE: Whether or NOT there should be notice and hearing before the cancellation of bail
HELD: YES. Petition is GRANTED IN PART. SET ASIDE for petitioner IMELDA GENER
RODRIGUEZ.
The grant of the bail, presupposes that the co-petitioner has already presented evidence to
prove her right to be on bail, that she is no flight risk, and the trial court had already exercised its
sound discretion and had already determined that under the Constitution and laws in force, copetitioner is entitled to provisional release.
Under these premises, co-petitioner Imelda Gener Rodriguez has offered to go on
voluntary extradition; that she and her husband had posted a cash bond of P1 million each; that her
husband had already gone on voluntary extradition and is presently in the USA undergoing trial; that
the passport of co-petitioner is already in the possession of the authorities; that she never attempted
to flee; that there is an existing hold-departure order against her; and that she is now in her 60s,
sickly and under medical treatment, we believe that the benefits of continued temporary liberty on
bail should not be revoked and their grant of bail should not be cancelled, without the co-petitioner
being given notice and without her being heard why her temporary liberty should not
be discontinued. Absent prior notice and hearing, the bails cancellation was in violation of her right
to due process.
We emphasize that bail may be granted to a possible extraditee only upon a clear and
convincing showing that:
1) he will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and
2) there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances.

Govt of Hong Kong vs. Olalia,

G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007
This case discusses whether the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of Rights extends to a
prospective extradite in an extradition1 proceeding.
On January 30, 1995, the Republic of the Philippines and the then British Crown Colony of
Hong Kong signed an "Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons." It took
effect on June 20, 1997.
The Petitioner is the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,
represented by the Philippine Department of Justice
The Respondents are Judge Felix Olalia and Juan Antonio Muoz
Facts: Private respondent Muoz was charged before the Hong Kong Court with three (3)
counts of the offense of "accepting an advantage as agent," in violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of
the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201 of Hong Kong. He also faces seven (7) counts of
the offense of conspiracy to defraud, penalized by the common law of Hong Kong. Warrants
of arrest were issued against him. If convicted, he faces a jail term of seven (7) to fourteen (14)
years for each charge.
On September 13, 1999, the DOJ received from the Hong Kong Department of Justice a
request for the provisional arrest of private respondent. The RTC, Branch 19, Manila issued
an Order of Arrest against private respondent. That same day, the NBI agents arrested and
detained him.
Private respondent filed a petition for bail which was opposed by petitioner. After hearing,
Judge Bernardo, Jr. issued an Order denying the petition for bail, holding that there is no
Philippine law granting bail in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high "flight risk."
Judge Bernardo, Jr. inhibited himself from further hearing the case, it was then raffled off to
Branch 8 presided by respondent judge. Private respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Order denying his application for bail and this was granted by
respondent judge.
Petitioner filed an urgent motion to vacate the above Order, but it was denied by respondent
judge. Hence, the instant petition.
Issue: Whether or not respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction as there is no provision in the Constitution granting bail to a
potential extraditee.
Held: No. Bearing in mind the purpose of extradition proceedings, the premise behind the
issuance of the arrest warrant and the "temporary detention" is the possibility of flight of the
potential extraditee. This is based on the assumption that such extraditee is a fugitive from
1

justice. Given the foregoing, the prospective extraditee thus bears the onus probandi of showing
that he or she is not a flight risk and should be granted bail.