Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

Hong Kong v.

Olalia
G.R. No. 153675
Facts
The Philippines and Hong Kong signed an Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and
Convicted Persons.
Private respondent Muo !as charged "efore the Hong Kong Court. #epartment of $ustice
%#&$' received from the Hong Kong #epartment of $ustice a re(uest for the provisional arrest of private
respondent Muo. The #&$ then for!arded the re(uest to the )ational *ureau of +nvestigation %)*+'
!hich, in turn, filed !ith the -TC of Manila, *ranch ./ an application for the provisional arrest of private
respondent. The )*+ agents arrested and detained him.
Muo filed a petition for "ail !hich !as denied "0 $udge *ernardo, $r. holding that there is no
Philippine la! granting "ail in e1tradition cases and that private respondent is a high flight ris2. After
$udge *ernardo, $r. inhi"ited himself from further hearing the case, it !as then raffled off to *ranch 3
presided "0 respondent 4udge. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the &rder den0ing
his application for "ail and this !as granted "0 respondent 4udge.
ISSUE
5hether or not the trial court committed grave a"use of discretion amounting to lac2 or e1cess of
4urisdiction in allo!ing private respondent to "ail6
HELD
)o, the trial court did not commit grave a"use of discretion amounting to lac2 or e1cess of
4urisdiction in allo!ing private respondent to "ail.
Accordingl0, although the time7honored principle of pacta sunt servanda demands that the
Philippines honor its o"ligations under the 81tradition Treat0 it entered into !ith the Hong Kong Special
Administrative -egion it does not necessaril0 mean that in 2eeping !ith its treat0 o"ligations, the
Philippines should diminish a potential e1traditee9s rights to life, li"ert0, and due process guaant!!" #$
t%! &onstitution. More so, !here these rights are guaranteed, not onl0 "0 our Constitution, "ut also "0
international conventions, particularl0 t%! Univ!sal D!claation o' Hu(an Rig%ts, to !hich the
Philippines is a part0.
)! s%oul" not* t%!!'o!* "!+iv! an !,ta"it!! o' %is ig%t to a++l$ 'o #ail* +ovi"!" t%at a
c!tain stan"a" 'o t%! gant is satis'actoil$ (!t. +n his Separate &pinion in Purganan, then
Associate $ustice, no! Chief $ustice -e0nato S. Puno, proposed that a ne! standard !hich he termed
clear and convincing evidence should "e used in granting "ail in e1tradition cases. According to him,
this standard should "e lo!er than proof "e0ond reasona"le dou"t "ut higher than preponderance of
evidence. The potential e1traditee must prove "0 clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight
ris2 and !ill a"ide !ith all the orders and processes of the e1tradition court.
+n this case, there is no sho!ing that private respondent presented evidence to sho! that he is not
a flight ris2. Conse(uentl0, this case should "e remanded to the trial court to determine !hether private
respondent ma0 "e granted "ail on the "asis of clear and convincing evidence.
5H8-8:&-8, !e #+SM+SS the petition. This case is -8MA)#8# to the trial court to determine
!hether private respondent is entitled to "ail on the "asis of clear and convincing evidence. +f not, the
trial court should order the cancellation of his "ail "ond and his immediate detention; and thereafter,
conduct the e1tradition proceedings !ith dispatch.