Scribd
Upload
216 views2 pages

GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG VS HON. FELIXBERTO T. OLLALIA, JR. (Digest)

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding whether an individual subject to extradition has the right to bail. The case involved a request from Hong Kong to extradite a man named Munoz who was charged with fraud-related offenses. While extradition law does not explicitly provide for bail, the Court held that as extradition involves deprivation of liberty, the potential extraditee retains due process rights under the Constitution, including the right to file a motion for bail. In this case, Munoz had already been detained for two years without conviction when bail was granted, constituting a serious infringement on his liberty rights. Upholding the right to bail balanced Hong Kong's extradition treaty obligations with protecting

Uploaded by

Laila Ismael Salisa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
216 views2 pages

GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG VS HON. FELIXBERTO T. OLLALIA, JR. (Digest)

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding whether an individual subject to extradition has the right to bail. The case involved a request from Hong Kong to extradite a man named Munoz who was charged with fraud-related offenses. While extradition law does not explicitly provide for bail, the Court held that as extradition involves deprivation of liberty, the potential extraditee retains due process rights under the Constitution, including the right to file a motion for bail. In this case, Munoz had already been detained for two years without conviction when bail was granted, constituting a serious infringement on his liberty rights. Upholding the right to bail balanced Hong Kong's extradition treaty obligations with protecting

Uploaded by

Laila Ismael Salisa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

59. GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG VS HON. FELIXBERTO T. OLLALIA, JR.

GR NO. 153675, APRIL 19, 2007

FACTS:
The Republic of the Philippines and Hong Kong signed an agreement for the surrender of
Accused and Convicted Person, it took effect on June 20, 1997. Private respondent Munoz, was
charge before the Hong Kong Court with three (3) counts of offense of accepting an advantage as
agent and seven (7) counts of conspiracy to defraud. The Hong Kong court issued a warrant of
arrest against Munoz.
The DOJ receive a request from the Hong Kong department of Justice for the provisional arrest
of Munoz. Which was forwarded to the NBI, likewise NBI filed with the RTC of Manila an
application for the provisional arrest of private respondent. On September 23, 1999, RTC issued
an Order of arrest against Munoz, at the same day Munoz was arrested and detained by the NBI.
On November 22, 1999, Hong Kong filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for extradition of
Munoz. Likewise, Munoz filed a petition for bail, which was denied by the judge Bernardo on
the ground that there is no Philippine law granting bail in extradition cases and Munoz is a high
“Flight Risk”. The Case re raffled to respondent Judge Olalia after Judge Bernardo inhibited
himself form the case. Respondent Judge then approve the bail, after a motion of reconsideration
was filed by Munoz.
Petitioner then filed an urgent motion to vacate the order of approving the bail of Munoz, which
the respondent judge denied. Hence the Petition to the Supreme Court. Petitioner contends that
the right to bail is solely in criminal proceeding, and that there is nothing in the constitution or
statutory law providing that a potential extradite has a right to bail.
ISSUE:
Whether or not in extradite proceedings, the right of bail is allowed?
HELD:
Yes. Sec (2) of PD no. 1069 or the Philippine Extradition Law defines extradition as the
removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of
foreign authorities to enable the requesting state or government to hold him in connection with
any criminal investigation directly against him or execution of a penalty imposed on him under
the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or government. Extradition is the right of foreign
power, created by treaty, to demand the surrender of one accused or convicted of a crime within
its territorial jurisdiction and the correlative duty of the other state to surrender him to the
demanding state. This extradition is not a criminal proceeding, but an administrative in character.
Its object is to prevent the escape of a person accused or convicted of a crime and to secure his
return to the state from which he fled, for the purpose of trial or punishment. It may not be a
criminal proceeding but it is characterized by: a) The deprivation of liberty on the part of the
potential extradite and b) the means employed to attain the purpose of extradition is also the
machinery of criminal law or the immediate arrest and temporary detention of the accused.
While extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an extradite, however, there is no
provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail, a right to due process under the
Constitution. In the case at bar, Munoz was detain on September 1999 to December 2001 or two
(2) years without being convicted of any crime. Such extended period of detention is a serious
deprivation of his fundamental right to liberty. In fact, it was this prolonged deprivation of
liberty that the petition for bail was granted. The time honoured principle of pacta sunt servanda
demands that the Philippines honor its obligation under Extradition Treaty, failure to comply
with these obligation is a set back in our foreign relation PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
A.Y. 2016-2017 Atty. Ryan Mercader 2K 223 and defeats the purpose of extradition. However,
it does not necessarily mean that in keeping with its treaty obligation, the Philippines should
diminish a potential extraditee’s right to life, liberty, and due process

You might also like