G.R. No. 148571
September 24, 2002
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
FACTS: The United States requested that Mark B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo, be
extradited to the Philippines through diplomatic procedures.
Jimenez requested a Temporary Restraining Order after learning of the extradition request, and the RTC
of Manila, Branch 25, granted his request. This order prevents the Department of Justice from
submitting a petition for Jimenez's extradition to the RTC.
However, the DOJ challenged the TRO's legality in a petition to the Court. The petition was first denied.
A reasonable amount of time was given to Jimenez to submit a comment and supporting
documentation, and the DOJ was required to give the private respondent copies of the extradition and
its supporting materials.
The court took the DOJ's Motion for Reconsideration under consideration and overturned its prior
judgment. It was decided that the private respondent had no right to notice or a hearing during the
extradition proceedings' review phase. The decision is therefore final and binding.
QUESTION: Does the right to bail exist in extradition proceedings?
RULING:
No.
Extradition differs from regular criminal processes in several ways.
Both Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court and Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution do not
apply because they are only available to those who have been arrested and jailed for breaking Philippine
criminal laws.
To emphasize, the extradition process is distinct from the case being tried for the crimes with which he
is charged. Instead of going before the extradition court, he could seek for bail before the courts hearing
his criminal matters.