Case Digest (G.R. No. 140520)
Facts:
Serafin R. Cuevas, substituted by Artemio G. Tuquero in his capacity as Secretary of Justice, petitioner, v. Juan Antonio Munoz, respondent, G.R. No. 140520, December 18, 2000, the Supreme Court Second Division, De Leon, Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision ordering respondent's release for having found null and void the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19, Manila, Order of Provisional Arrest dated September 20, 1999.In Hong Kong, a Magistrate’s Court issued on August 23, 1997 an outstanding warrant for the arrest of Juan Antonio Munoz for 14 charges (seven counts of accepting an advantage as an agent under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance and seven counts of conspiracy to defraud). On September 13, 1999 the Hong Kong Department of Justice sent to the Philippine Department of Justice a request for provisional arrest under Article 11(1) of the RP–Hong Kong Extradition Agreement, which the Philippine DOJ forwarded to the NBI.
Acting for Hong Kong, the NBI filed with the RTC of Manila an application for provisional arrest on September 17, 1999. On September 20, 1999 Branch 19 of the RTC granted the application and issued an Order of Arrest; respondent was arrested on September 23, 1999 and detained at the NBI. On October 14, 1999 respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus (with application for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or writ of habeas corpus) attacking the Order of Arrest.
The Court of Appeals on November 9, 1999 declared the RTC Order null and void on five grounds: (1) lack of urgency under Article 11(1) of the Extradition Agreement; (2) the request and accompanying warrant/summary were unauthenticated facsimiles; (3) Section 20(d) of P.D. No. 1069 limited provisional arrest to 20 days and was not amended by Article 11(3) of the Agreement; (4) the RTC judge did not personally determine probable cause; and (5) the rule of dual criminality under Section 3(a) of P.D. No. 1069 was not satisfied because the alleged Hong Kong offenses were not punishable under Philippine law.
Petitioner (the Secretary of Justice) filed a petition for review on certiorari with this Court under Rule 45, assailing the Court of Appeals' ruling. Respondent filed an Urgent Motion For Release Pending Appeal (Nov. 17, 1999) arguing detention exceeded the 20-day provisional arrest period without filing of a formal extradition petition in court. Petitioner later informed the Court (Manifestation, Dec. 16, 1999) ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in declaring the RTC Order of provisional arrest null and void?
- Was there urgency justifying provisional arrest under Article 11(1) and Section 20(a) of P.D. No. 1069?
- Were the request for provisional arrest and its accompanying facsimile documents invalid for lack of authentication?
- Did Section 20(d) of P.D. No. 1069 limit provisional arrest to 20 days such that respondent’s continued detention required the filing of a petition for extradition in court?
- Did the RTC judge fail to personally determine probable cause as required by the Constitution?
- Was the requirement of dual criminality under Section 3(a) ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)