Government of US vs Purganan GR No.

148571
FACTS:
The United States Government sent to the Philippine Government Note Verbale No. 0522
supplemented by other Notes and authenticated documents requesting the extradition of Mark
B. Jimenez (also known as Mario Batacan Crespo), who was the subject of an arrest warrant
issued by the United States in connection with charges which includes conspiracy to defraud
the US. Upon receipt of the Notes and documents, the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA)
transmitted them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate action. To prevent the escape
of Jimenez, the petitioner prayed for the issuance of an order for his immediate arrest. In his
Memorandum, Jimenez prayed that in case a warrant should issue, he be allowed to post bail in
the amount of P100,000. This prayer was set for hearing, after which the lower court ordered
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 via the challenged Order dated July 4, 2001. Hence, this petition,
which prays inter alia for the lifting of the bail order.
Jimenez maintains that the Constitution 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.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the constitutional right to bail applies to extradition proceedings

HELD
No, the constitutional right to bail does not apply to extradition proceedings. 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. It is more akin to a courts request to police authorities for the arrest
of the accused who is at large or has escaped detention or jumped bail. Having once escaped
the jurisdiction of the requesting state, the reasonable prima facie presumption is that the
person would escape again if given the opportunity. The proceedings are intended merely to
assist the requesting state in bringing the accused -- or the fugitive who has illegally escaped -back to its territory, so that the criminal process may proceed therein. 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 proceedings should be conducted with all deliberate speed to determine
compliance with the Extradition Treaty and Law. Our country should not be converted into a
dubious haven where fugitives and escapees can unreasonably delay, mummify, mock,
frustrate, checkmate and defeat the quest for bilateral justice and international cooperation.

(Note: This ruling is modified later in Government of Hong Kong v Olalia, where the Court
stated that if bail can be granted in deportation cases, there is no reason why it cannot be
invoked in extradition cases; after all, both are administrative proceedings where the innocence
or guilt of the person detained is not in issue)