Case Digest (G.R. No. 113213)
Facts:
Paul Joseph Wright v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Judge Jose de la Rama, RTC, Branch 139, Makati, M.M., and Hon. Frank Drilon, Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 113213, August 15, 1994, First Division, Kapunan, J., writing for the Court.
The dispute arises from extradition proceedings instituted by the Philippine Government at the request of Australia under the Treaty of Extradition between Australia and the Republic of the Philippines (signed March 7, 1988; ratified by the Senate September 10, 1990 and effective thirty days after mutual notification). The Treaty adopts a non‑list, double‑criminality standard (offenses punishable by at least one year imprisonment) and permits extradition “irrespective of when the offense … was committed,” provided certain conditions are met (Article 2(4)). The Treaty’s documentary requisites appear in Articles 6 and 7.
Petitioner Paul Joseph Wright, an Australian citizen, was the subject of a diplomatic extradition request transmitted to the Philippine Department of Justice by Australia on February 19, 1993 (indorsed to DOJ April 17, 1993). Australia sought Wright for multiple indictable offenses under the Victorian Crimes Act of 1958: in the “Wright/Orr” matter, one count of Obtaining Property by Deception (sec. 81[1]); in the “Wright/Cracker” matter, thirteen counts of Obtaining Property by Deception (sec. 81[1]), one count of Attempting to Obtain Property by Deception (sec. 321[m]) and one count of Perjury (sec. 314). The diplomatic note and supporting papers described the factual allegations and included warrants or copies thereof and related certifications.
Pursuant to Section 5 of PD No. 1069 (as applied to the Treaty), extradition proceedings were initiated on April 6, 1993 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 139. The RTC ordered arrest and caused the petitioner’s detention (arrested April 26, 1993 and held in NBI custody). Petitioner filed an answer and testified that he had no pending case in Australia, described multiple entries to and departures from the Philippines during 1990, and denied being a fugitive; he also failed to produce his allegedly extended tourist visa.
On June 14, 1993 the RTC granted Australia’s request, finding that the documents satisfied Article 7 and that the charged offenses corresponded to Philippine crimes (Articles 315[2] — swindling/estafa — and 183 — perjury). The RTC also accepted that extradition could be granted for offenses committed before the Treaty took effect so long as they were offenses in the requesting State when committed and would have constituted offenses under Philippine law at the time of the extradition request.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed on September 14, 1993 and denied a motion for reconsideration on December 16, 1993. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court complaining (inter alia) that: (a) the Treaty's retroactive application amounted to an ex post fac...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the Treaty's retroactive application to offenses committed prior to its effectivity violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws?
- Did the documents submitted by Australia satisfy the Treaty’s documentary requirements and show that petitioner was “wanted for prosecution” so as to justify extradition?
- Did the trial court commit reversible error in finding petitioner had absconded or in ordering extradition ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)