US v.

PURGANAN

FACTS: Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the US Government requested the
extradition of Mark B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo.
Jimenez sought and was granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by the RTC. The TRO
prohibited the Department of Justice (DOJ) from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition. The
validity of the TRO was, however, assailed by the SOJ in a Petition before the SC but it dismissed the
Petition.
The SOJ was ordered to furnish Jimenez the copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers
and to grant the latter a reasonable period within which to file a comment and supporting evidence. The
SOJ fied an MR and the SC reversed its earlier Decision. It held that private respondent was bereft of
the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. This Resolution
has become final and executory.
Thereafter, the US represented by the DOJ, filed with the RTC the appropriate Petition for Extradition.
The Petition alleged, inter alia, that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the US. The
warrant had been issued in connection with the following charges: (1) conspiracy to defraud the United
States and to commit certain offenses in violation of Title 18 US Code Section 371; (2) tax evasion; (3)
wire fraud, (4) false statements, and (5) illegal campaign contributions. In order to prevent the flight of
Jimenez, the Petition prayed for the issuance of an order for his "immediate arrest" pursuant to Section
6 of PD No. 1069.
Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Respondent Jimenez filed before it an "Urgent
Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion," which prayed that petitioner’s application for an arrest warrant be set
for hearing. The court granted the motion. In that hearing, 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 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 Jimenez was also set for hearing. Thereafter, the court below directed the
issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at one million pesos in cash.
After he had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond, Jimenez was granted
provisional liberty. Hence, this Petition.
ISSUES: (1) WON Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant for his arrest can be
issued
(2) WON Jimenez is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are
pending
HELD: (1) NO. By nature then, extradition proceedings are not equivalent to a criminal case in which
guilt or innocence is determined. Consequently, an extradition case is not one in which the
constitutional rights of the accused are necessarily available. Immediately upon receipt of the petition
for extradition and its supporting documents, the judge shall make a prima facie finding whether the
petition is sufficient in form and substance, whether it complies with the Extradition Treaty and Law,
and whether the person sought is extraditable. The magistrate has discretion to require the petitioner to
submit further documentation, or to personally examine the affiants or witnesses. If convinced that a
prima facie case exists, the judge immediately issues a warrant for the arrest of the potential extraditee
and summons him or her to answer and to appear at scheduled hearings on the petition.
(2) NO. As a rule, after being taken into custody, potential extraditees may apply for bail. However,
since the applicants have a history of absconding, they have the burden of showing that (a) there is no
flight risk and no danger to the community; and (b) there exist special, humanitarian or compelling
circumstances. The grounds used by the highest court in the requesting state for the grant of bail therein
may be considered, under the principle of reciprocity as a special circumstance. In extradition cases,
bail is not a matter of right; it is subject to judicial discretion in the context of the peculiar facts of each
case.
Extradition is essentially an executive, not a judicial, responsibility arising out of the presidential power
to conduct foreign relations and to implement treaties. Thus, the Executive Department of government
has broad discretion in its duty and power of implementation. On the other hand, courts merely perform
oversight functions and exercise review authority to prevent or excise grave abuse and tyranny. They
should not allow contortions, delays and "over-due process" every little step of the way, lest these
summary extradition proceedings become not only inutile but also sources of international
embarrassment due to our inability to comply in good faith with a treaty partner’s simple request to
return a fugitive.
The Petition was GRANTED. The assailed RTC Order was declared NULL and VOID, while the
challenged Orderwas SET ASIDE insofar as it granted bail to Respondent Mark Jimenez. The bail bond
posted by private respondent was CANCELLED. The RTC was directed to conduct the extradition
proceedings before it, with all deliberate speed pursuant to the spirit and the letter of our Extradition
Treaty with the United States as well as our Extradition Law.