Documents

consti-2-digest-132-govt-of-usa-vs-judge-purganan.doc

Description
g
Categories
Published
of 15
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  Government of USA vs PurgananG.R. No. 148571. September 24, 2002a!ts  This Petition is really a sequel to GR No. 139465 entitled Secretary of Justice v. Ralph C. Lantion  where the court held that Jimene was!ere t o the ri#ht to notice and hearin# durin# the e$aluation sta#e o thee%tradition &rocess. 'indin# no more le#al o!stacle( the Go$ernment o the )nited *tates o  +merica( re&resented !y the Phili&&ine ,-J( led with the RT/ on 10 ay21( the a&&ro&riate Petition or %tradition which was doceted as%tradition /ase 119261. The Petition alle#ed( inter alia( that Jimenewas the su!ect o an arrest warrant issued !y the )nited *tates ,istrict/ourt or the *outhern ,istrict o 'lorida on 15 +&ril 1999.7e ore the RT/ could act on the Petition( Jimene led !e ore it an 8)r#entani estation%:Parte otion(8 which &rayed that Jimene;s a&&lication oran arrest warrant !e set or hearin#. <n its 23 ay 21 -rder( the RT/#ranted the otion o Jimene and set the case or hearin# on 5 June 21.<n that hearin#( Jimene mani ested its reser$ations on the &rocedureado&ted !y the trial court allowin# the accused in an e%tradition case to !eheard &rior to the issuance o a warrant o arrest. + ter the hearin#( the court a quo required the &arties to su!mit theirres&ecti$e memoranda. <n his emorandum( Jimene sou#ht an alternati$e&rayer= that in case a warrant should issue( he !e allowed to &ost !ail inthe amount o P1(.  The alternati$e &rayer o Jimene was also set or hearin# on 15 June 21. Therea ter( the court !elow issued its 3 July 21 -rder( directin# theissuance o warrant or his arrest and %in# !ail or his tem&orary li!erty atP1 million in cash. + ter he had surrendered his &ass&ort and &osted therequired cash !ond( Jimene was #ranted &ro$isional li!erty $ia thechallen#ed -rder dated 4 July 21. >ence( this &etition. #ssues   1 .?hether Jimene is entitled to notice and hearin# !e ore awarrant or his arrest can !e issued 2.  ?hether he is entitled to !ail and to &ro$isional li!erty while thee%tradition &roceedin#s are &endin# $e%& = 1.  No.  To determine &ro!a!le cause or the issuance o arrest warrants( the/onstitution itsel requires only the e%amination :: under oath ora@rmation :: o complainants  and the witnesses they may produce . Thereis no requirement to noti y and hear the accused  !e ore the issuance o  warrants o arrest.+t most( in cases o clear insu@ciency o e$idence on record( ud#esmerely urther e%amine complainants  and their witnesses. <n the &resentcase( $alidatin# the act o res&ondent ud#e and institutin# the &ractice o  hearin# the accused and his witnesses at this early sta#e would !ediscordant with the rationale or the entire system. < the accused wereallowed to !e heard and necessarily to &resent e$idence durin# the  primafacie determination or the issuance o a warrant o arrest( what would sto&him rom &resentin# his entire &lethora o de enses at this sta#e :: i he sodesires :: in his eAort to ne#ate a  prima facie nding B *uch a &rocedurecould con$ert the determination o a &rima acie case into a ull:!lown trialo the entire &roceedin#s and &ossi!ly mae trial o the main casesu&erCuous. This scenario is also anathema to the summary nature o  e%traditions. ''' )&on recei&t o a &etition or e%tradition and its su&&ortin# documents(the ud#e must study them and mae( as soon as &ossi!le( a  prima faciending whether DaE they are su@cient in orm and su!stance( D!E theyshow com&liance with the %tradition Treaty and Faw( and DcE the &ersonsou#ht is e%tradita!le. +t his discretion( the ud#e may require thesu!mission o urther documentation or may &ersonally e%amine thea@ants and witnesses o the &etitioner. < ( in s&ite o this study ande%amination( no  prima facie nding is &ossi!le( the &etition may !edismissed at the discretion o the ud#e.-n the other hand( i the &resence o a &rima acie case is determined(then the ma#istrate must immediately issue a warrant or the arrest o thee%traditee( who is at the same time summoned to answer the &etition andto a&&ear at scheduled summary hearin#s. Prior to the issuance o thewarrant( the ud#e must not in orm or noti y the &otential e%traditee o the&endency o the &etition( lest the latter !e #i$en the o&&ortunity to esca&eand rustrate the &roceedin#s. <n our o&inion( the ore#oin# &rocedure will!est ser$e the ends o usticeH in e%tradition cases. '''2. No. %tradition cases are diAerent rom ordinary criminal &roceedin#s. Theconstitutional ri#ht to !ail Cows rom the &resum&tion o innocence in a$or o e$ery accused who should not !e su!ected to the loss o reedomas therea ter he would !e entitled to acquittal( unless his #uilt !e &ro$ed!eyond reasona!le dou!t.H   <t ollows that the constitutional &ro$ision on!ail will not a&&ly to a case lie e%tradition( where the &resum&tion o  innocence is not at issue.  Res&ondent Jimene cites the orei#n case Paretti   in ar#uin# that(constitutionally( Ino one shall !e de&ri$ed o % % % li!erty % % % withoutdue &rocess o law.H/ontrary to his contention( his detention &rior to the conclusion o thee%tradition &roceedin#s does not amount to a $iolation o his ri#ht to due&rocess. ?e iterate the amiliar doctrine that the essence o due &rocess isthe o&&ortunity to !e heard !ut( at the same time( &oint out that thedoctrine does not always call or a  prior   o&&ortunity to !e heard. ?here thecircumstances :: such as those &resent in an e%tradition case :: call or it(a subsequent   o&&ortunity to !e heard is enou#h. <n the &resent case(res&ondent will !e #i$en ull o&&ortunity to !e heard su!sequently( whenthe e%tradition court hears the Petition or %tradition. >ence( there is no$iolation o his ri#ht to due &rocess and undamental airness.N 7+N/ (G.R. No. 148571. September 24, 2002)G*+RN-N * $ UN#/ SAS * A-R#A, represente&b te P3%3pp3ne /epartment of ust3!e,  petitioner, vs. $on.GU#R-* G. PURGANAN, -ora%es, an& Pres3&3ng u&ge,Reg3ona% r3a% ourt   of -an3%a, 6ran! 42 an& -AR 6. #-N9 a.:.a. -AR#* 6AAAN RSP*, respondents. /   # S # * NPANGAN#6AN,  J.: <n e%tradition &roceedin#s( are &ros&ecti$e e%traditees entitled tonotice and hearin# before warrants or their arrest can !e issuedB quallyim&ortant( are they entitled to the ri#ht to !ail and &ro$isional li!erty whilethe e%tradition &roceedin#s are &endin#B <n #eneral( the answer to thesetwo no$el questions is No.H The explanation  o and the reasons   or( aswell as the exceptions to( this rule are laid out in this ,ecision. e ase 7e ore us is a Petition or /ertiorari under Rule 65 o the Rules o  /ourt( seein# to $oid and set aside the -rders dated ay 23( 21 I1  and July 3( 21 I2  issued !y the Re#ional Trial /ourt DRT/E o anila( 7ranch 42. I3   The rst assailed -rder set or hearin# &etitioner;s a&&lication or theissuance o a warrant or the arrest o Res&ondent ar 7. Jimene. The second challen#ed -rder( on the other hand( directed theissuance o a warrant( !ut at the same time #ranted !ail to Jimene. Thedis&ositi$e &ortion o the -rder reads as ollows=?>R'-R( in the li#ht o the ore#oin#( the I/ourt nds &ro!a!lecause a#ainst res&ondent ar Jimene. +ccordin#ly let a ?arrant or thearrest o the res&ondent !e issued. /onsequently and tain# intoconsideration *ection 9( Rule 114 o the Re$ised Rules o /riminalProcedure( this /ourt %es the reasona!le amount o !ail or res&ondent;stem&orary li!erty at -N <FF<-N P*-* DPh& 1((.E( the same to!e &aid in cash.'urthermore res&ondent is directed to immediately surrender to this /ourthis &ass&ort and the 7ureau o <mmi#ration and ,e&ortation is liewisedirected to include the name o the res&ondent in its >old ,e&artureFist.H I4 ssentially( the Petition &rays or the li tin# o the !ail -rder( thecancellation o the !ond( and the tain# o Jimene into le#al custody. e a!ts  This Petition is really a sequel to GR No. 139465 entitled  Secretary of  Justice v. Ralph C. antion. I5 Pursuant to the e%istin# RP:)* %tradition Treaty( I6  the )nited *tatesGo$ernment( throu#h di&lomatic channels( sent to the Phili&&ineGo$ernment Note Ker!ale No. 522 dated June 16( 1999( su&&lemented !yNote Nos. 59L( L2 and 09 and accom&anied !y duly authenticateddocuments requestin# the e%tradition o ar 7. Jimene( also nown asario 7atacan /res&o. )&on recei&t o the Notes and documents( thesecretary o orei#n aAairs D*'+E transmitted them to the secretary o   ustice D*-JE or a&&ro&riate action( &ursuant to *ection 5 o Presidential,ecree DP,E No. 169( also nown as the %tradition Faw.)&on learnin# o the request or his e%tradition( Jimene sou#ht andwas #ranted a Tem&orary Restrainin# -rder DTR-E !y the RT/ o anila(7ranch 25. IL   The TR- &rohi!ited the ,e&artment o Justice D,-JE rom lin#with the RT/ a &etition or his e%tradition. The $alidity o the TR- was(howe$er( assailed !y the *-J in a Petition !e ore this /ourt in the said GRNo. 139465. <nitially( the /ourt :: !y a $ote o 9:6 :: dismissed thePetition. The *-J was ordered to urnish &ri$ate res&ondent co&ies o thee%tradition request and its su&&ortin# &a&ers and to #rant the latter a  reasona!le &eriod within which to le a comment and su&&ortin# e$idence. I0 +ctin# on the otion or Reconsideration led !y the *-J( this /ourtissued its -cto!er 1L( 2 Resolution. I9  7y an identical $ote o 9:6 :: a terthree ustices chan#ed their $otes :: it reconsidered and re$ersed its earlier,ecision. <t held that &ri$ate res&ondent was !ere t o the ri#ht to noticeand hearin# durin# the e$aluation sta#e o the e%tradition &rocess. ThisResolution has !ecome nal and e%ecutory.'indin# no more le#al o!stacle( the Go$ernment o the )nited *tateso +merica( re&resented !y the Phili&&ine ,-J( led with the RT/ on ay10( 21( the a&&ro&riate Petition or %tradition which was doceted as%tradition /ase No. 119261. The Petition alle#ed( inter alia! that Jimene was the su!ect o an arrest warrant issued !y the )nited *tates,istrict /ourt or the *outhern ,istrict o 'lorida on +&ril 15( 1999. Thewarrant had !een issued in connection with the ollowin# char#es in<ndictment No. 99:201 /R:*<TM= D1E cons&iracy to de raud the )nited*tates and to commit certain oAenses in $iolation o Title 10 )* /ode*ection 3L1 D2E ta% e$asion( in $iolation o Title 26 )* /ode *ection L21D3E wire raud( in $iolation o Title 10 )* /ode *ections 1343 and 2 D4E alse statements( in $iolation o Title 10 )* /ode *ections 11 and 2 andD5E ille#al cam&ai#n contri!utions( in $iolation o Title 2 )* /ode *ections441!( 441 and 43L#DdE and Title 10 )* /ode *ection 2. <n order to&re$ent the Ci#ht o Jimene( the Petition &rayed or the issuance o anorder or his immediate arrestH &ursuant to *ection 6 o P, No. 169.7e ore the RT/ could act on the Petition( Res&ondent Jimene led!e ore it an )r#ent ani estation%:Parte otion(H I1  which &rayed that&etitioner;s a&&lication or an arrest warrant !e set or hearin#.<n its assailed ay 23( 21 -rder( the RT/ #ranted the otion o   Jimene and set the case or hearin# on June 5( 21. <n that hearin#(&etitioner mani ested its reser$ations on the &rocedure ado&ted !y the trialcourt allowin# the accused in an e%tradition case to !e heard &rior to theissuance o a warrant o arrest.+ ter the hearin#( the court a quo  required the &arties to su!mit theirres&ecti$e memoranda. <n his emorandum( Jimene sou#ht analternati$e &rayer= that in case a warrant should issue( he !e allowed to&ost !ail in the amount o P1(. The alternati$e &rayer o Jimene was also set or hearin# on June 15(21. Therea ter( the court !elow issued its questioned July 3( 21 -rder(directin# the issuance o a warrant or his arrest and %in# !ail or histem&orary li!erty at one million &esos in cash. I11  + ter he had surrenderedhis &ass&ort and &osted the required cash !ond( Jimene was #ranted&ro$isional li!erty $ia the challen#ed -rder dated July 4( 21. I12 >ence( this Petition. I13 #ssues Petitioner &resents the ollowin# issues or the consideration o this/ourt= #. The &u!lic res&ondent acted without or in e%cess o urisdiction or with#ra$e a!use o discretion amountin# to lac or e%cess o urisdiction inado&tin# a &rocedure o rst hearin# a &otential e%traditee !e ore issuin#an arrest warrant under *ection 6 o P, No. 169. ##. The &u!lic res&ondent acted without or in e%cess o urisdiction or with#ra$e a!use o discretion amountin# to lac or e%cess o urisdiction in#rantin# the &rayer or !ail and in allowin# Jimene to #o on &ro$isionalli!erty !ecause=O1. +n e%tradition court has no &ower to authorie !ail( in the a!sence o  any law that &ro$ides or such &ower.O2. *ection 13( +rticle <<< Dri#ht to !ail clauseE o the 190L Phili&&ine/onstitution and *ection 4( Rule 114 D7ailE o the Rules o /ourt( asamended( which Iwere relied u&on( cannot !e used as !ases or allowin#!ail in e%tradition &roceedin#s.O3. The &resum&tion is a#ainst !ail in e%tradition &roceedin#s or&roceedin#s leadin# to e%tradition.O4. -n the assum&tion that !ail is a$aila!le in e%tradition &roceedin#s or&roceedin#s leadin# to e%tradition( !ail is not a matter o ri#ht !ut only o  discretion u&on clear showin# !y the a&&licant o the e%istence o s&ecialcircumstances.O5. +ssumin# that !ail is a matter o discretion in e%tradition &roceedin#s(the &u!lic res&ondent recei$ed no e$idence o Os&ecial circumstances;which may usti y release on !ail.O6. The ris that Jimene will Cee is hi#h( and no s&ecial circumstancee%ists that will en#ender a well: ounded !elie that he will not Cee.OL. The conditions attached to the #rant o !ail are ineAectual and do notensure com&liance !y the Phili&&ines with its o!li#ations under the RP:)*%tradition Treaty.  O0. The /ourt o +&&eals Resolution &romul#ated on ay 1( 21 in thecase entitled O duardo #. Rodrigue$ et al. vs. #he %on. Presiding Judge!R#C! &ranch '(! )anila!*   /+:G.R. *P No. 64509( relied u&on !y the &u!licres&ondent in #rantin# !ail( had !een recalled !e ore the issuance o thesu!ect !ail orders.;H I14 <n sum( the su!stanti$e questions that this /ourt will address are= D1Ewhether Jimene is entitled to notice and hearin# !e ore a warrant or hisarrest can !e issued( and D2E whether he is entitled to !ail and to&ro$isional li!erty while the e%tradition &roceedin#s are&endin#. Preliminarily( we shall tae u& the alle#ed &rematurity o thePetition or /ertiorari arisin# rom &etitioner;s ailure to le a otion orReconsideration in the RT/ and to see relie in the /ourt o +&&eals D/+E(instead o in this /ourt. I15  ?e shall also &reliminarily discuss $ee%tradition &ostulates that will #uide us in dis&osin# o the su!stanti$eissues. e ourt;s Ru%3ng  The Petition is meritorious. Pre%3m3nar -atters  Alleged Prematurity of Present Petition Petitioner su!mits the ollowin# ustications or not lin# a otion orReconsideration in the %tradition /ourt= D1E the issues were ullyconsidered !y such court a ter requirin# the &arties to su!mit theirres&ecti$e memoranda and &osition &a&ers on the matter and thus( thelin# o a reconsideration motion would ser$e no use ul &ur&ose D2E theassailed orders are a &atent nullity( a!sent actual and le#al !asis there orand D3E the need or relie is e%tremely ur#ent( as the &assa#e o su@cienttime would #i$e Jimene am&le o&&ortunity to esca&e and a$oide%tradition and D4E the issues raised are &urely o law.H I16 'or resortin# directly to this /ourt instead o the /+( &etitionersu!mits the ollowin# reasons= D1E e$en i the &etition is lod#ed with the/ourt o +&&eals and such a&&ellate court taes co#niance o the issuesand decides them( the &arties would still !rin# the matter to this >onora!le/ourt to ha$e the issues resol$ed once and or all Iand to ha$e a !indin#&recedent that all lower courts ou#ht to ollow D2E the >onora!le /ourt o  +&&eals had in one case I1L  ruled on the issue !y disallowin# !ail !ut thecourt !elow re used to reco#nie the decision as a udicial #uide and allother courts mi#ht liewise ado&t the same attitude o re usal and D3Ethere are &endin# issues on !ail !oth in the e%tradition courts and the/ourt o +&&eals( which( unless #uided !y the decision that this >onora!le/ourt will render in this case( would resol$e to #rant !ail in a$or o the&otential e%traditees and would #i$e them o&&ortunity to Cee and thus(cause ad$erse eAect on the a!ility o the Phili&&ines to com&ly with itso!li#ations under e%istin# e%tradition treaties.H I10 +s a #eneral rule( a &etition or certiorari !e ore a hi#her court will not&ros&er unless the in erior court has !een #i$en( throu#h a motion orreconsideration( a chance to correct the errors im&uted to it. This rule(thou#h( has certain e%ce&tions= D1E when the issue raised is &urely o law(D2E when &u!lic interest is in$ol$ed( or D3E in case o ur#ency. I19  +s a ourthe%ce&tion( the /ourt has also ruled that the lin# o a motion orreconsideration !e ore a$ailment o the remedy o certiorari is not a sinequa non!  when the questions raised are the same as those that ha$ealready !een squarely ar#ued and e%hausti$ely &assed u&on !y the lowercourt. I2  +side rom !ein# o this nature( the issues in the &resent case alsoin$ol$e &ure questions o law that are o &u!lic interest. >ence( a motion or reconsideration may !e dis&ensed with.Fiewise( this /ourt has allowed a direct in$ocation o its ori#inal urisdiction to issue writs o certiorari when there are s&ecial and im&ortantreasons there or. I21  <n +ortich v. Corona I22 we stated=IThe *u&reme /ourt has the ull discretionary &ower to tae co#nianceo the &etition led directly I!e ore it i com&ellin# reasons( or the natureand im&ortance o the issues raised( warrant. This has !een the udicial&olicy to !e o!ser$ed and which has !een reiterated in su!sequent cases(namely= ,y vs. Contreras! et. al.!   #orres vs. -rran$  ( &ercero vs. e /u$man (and(  -dvincula vs. egaspi! et  . al . +s we ha$e urther stated in Cuaresma =O% % %. + direct in$ocation o the *u&reme /ourt;s ori#inal urisdiction toissue these writs should !e allowed only when there are s&ecial andim&ortant reasons there or( clearly and s&ecically set out in the&etition. This is esta!lished &olicy. % % %.;Pursuant to said udicial &olicy( we resol$e to tae &rimary urisdictiono$er the &resent &etition in the interest o s&eedy ustice and to a$oid uture liti#ations so as to &rom&tly &ut an end to the &resent contro$ersywhich( as correctly o!ser$ed !y &etitioners( has s&ared national interest!ecause o the ma#nitude o the &ro!lem created !y the issuance o theassailed resolution. oreo$er( % % % requirin# the &etitioners to le their&etition rst with the /ourt o +&&eals would only result in a waste o timeand money. That the /ourt has the &ower to set aside its own rules in the hi#herinterests o ustice is well:entrenched in our uris&rudence. ?e reiteratewhat we said in Pic$on vs. Court of -ppeals0 I23 O7e it remem!ered that rules o &rocedure are !ut mere tools desi#ned to acilitate the attainment o ustice. Their strict and ri#id a&&lication( whichwould result in technicalities that tend to rustrate rather than &romote
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks