Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Government of The United States of America vs. Judge Puruganan, G.R. 1488571, September 24, 2002

    Uploaded by

    unbiasedworkrelatedph
    1) The Supreme Court ruled that Mark B. Jimenez is not entitled to bail during extradition proceedings, as extradition proceedings are different from ordinary criminal proceedings and the constitutional right to bail does not apply. 2) Extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal, and the presumption of innocence is not at issue in extradition cases. 3) While the offenses Jimenez is accused of may be bailable in the United States, he must apply for bail in the courts trying the criminal case against him, not the extradition court conducting extradition proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Government of The United States of America vs. Judge Puruganan, G.R. 1488571, September 24, 2002

    Uploaded by

    unbiasedworkrelatedph
    15 views2 pages
    1) The Supreme Court ruled that Mark B. Jimenez is not entitled to bail during extradition proceedings, as extradition proceedings are different from ordinary criminal proceedings and the constitutional right to bail does not apply. 2) Extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal, and the presumption of innocence is not at issue in extradition cases. 3) While the offenses Jimenez is accused of may be bailable in the United States, he must apply for bail in the courts trying the criminal case against him, not the extradition court conducting extradition proceedings.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Government of the United States of America vs. Judge Puruganan, G.R. 1488571, September 24, 2002

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The Supreme Court ruled that Mark B. Jimenez is not entitled to bail during extradition proceedings, as extradition proceedings are different from ordinary criminal proceedings and the constitutional right to bail does not apply. 2) Extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal, and the presumption of innocence is not at issue in extradition cases. 3) While the offenses Jimenez is accused of may be bailable in the United States, he must apply for bail in the courts trying the criminal case against him, not the extradition court conducting extradition proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    15 views2 pages

    Government of The United States of America vs. Judge Puruganan, G.R. 1488571, September 24, 2002

    Uploaded by

    unbiasedworkrelatedph
    1) The Supreme Court ruled that Mark B. Jimenez is not entitled to bail during extradition proceedings, as extradition proceedings are different from ordinary criminal proceedings and the constitutional right to bail does not apply. 2) Extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal, and the presumption of innocence is not at issue in extradition cases. 3) While the offenses Jimenez is accused of may be bailable in the United States, he must apply for bail in the courts trying the criminal case against him, not the extradition court conducting extradition proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    GOVERNMENT OF US v. GUILLERMO G. PURGANAN, GR No.

    148571, 2002-09-24

    Facts:

    Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty,[6] the United States Government, requesting the
    extradition of Mark B. Jimenez,... pursuant to

    Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1069, also known as the Extradition Law.

    Upon learning of the request for his extradition, Jimenez sought and was granted a Temporary
    Restraining Order (TRO)

    The validity of the TRO was, however, assailed by the SOJ... itially, the Court -- by a vote of 9-6 --
    dismissed the Petition. The SOJ was ordered to furnish private respondent 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.[8]

    Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the SOJ,... three justices changed their votes -- it
    reconsidered and 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

    Finding no more legal obstacle, the Government of the United States of America, represented by the
    Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC o... the appropriate Petition for Extradition... that Jimenez was the
    subject of an arrest warrant issued by the United States

    The warrant had been issued in connection with the following charges in Indictment No. 99-00281 CR-
    SEITZ: (1) conspiracy to... defraud the United States and to commit certain offenses in violation of Title
    18 US Code Section 371; (2) tax evasion, in violation of Title 26 US Code Section 7201; (3) wire fraud, in
    violation of Title 18 US Code Sections 1343 and 2; (4) false statements, in violation of

    Title 18 US Code Sections 1001 and 2; and (5) illegal campaign contributions, in violation of Title 2 US
    Code Sections 441b, 441f and 437g(d) and Title 18 US Code Section

    Respondent Jimenez filed before it an "Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion,"[10] which prayed that
    petitioner's application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing.

    Jimenez sought an alternative prayer: that in case a warrant should issue, he be allowed to post bail

    Respondent Mark B. Jimenez maintains that this constitutional provision secures the right to bail of all
    persons, including those sought to be extradited.

    Supposedly, the only exceptions are the ones charged with offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua,
    when evidence of... guilt is strong. He also alleges the relevance to the present case of Section 4[59] of
    Rule 114 of the Rules of Court which, insofar as practicable and consistent with the summary nature of
    extradition proceedings, shall also apply according to Section 9 of

    PD 1069.

    On the other hand, petitioner claims that there is no provision in the Philippine Constitution granting the
    right to bail to a person who is the subject of an extradition request and arrest warrant.
    Issues:

    (2) whether he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are...
    pending. P

    Ruling:

    Extradition Different from Ordinary Criminal Proceedings

    We agree with petitioner. As suggested by the use of the word "conviction," the constitutional provision
    on bail quoted above, 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."[60] It follows that the constitutional
    provision on bail will not apply to a case like extradition, where 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" does not detract from the rule that the
    constitutional right to bail is available only in criminal proceedings.

    It must be noted that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus finds application "only
    to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with
    invasion."[61] Hence, the second sentence in... the constitutional provision on bail merely emphasizes
    the right to bail in criminal proceedings for the aforementioned offenses. It cannot be taken to mean
    that the right is available even in extradition proceedings that are not criminal in nature.

    That the offenses for which Jimenez is sought to be extradited are bailable in the United States is not an
    argument to grant him one in the present case. To stress, extradition proceedings are separate and
    distinct from the trial for the offenses for which he is charged. He... should apply for bail before the
    courts trying the criminal cases against him, not before the extradition court.

    Principles:

    You might also like