PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANNABELLE FRANCISCO y DAVID, @ ANNABELLE TABLAN, accused-appellant.

PROCEDURAL RULES, QUASHAL OF WARRANT AND EFFECT Federico Verona and his live-in girlfriend, accused-appellant Annabelle Francisco, were placed under surveillance after the police confirmed, through a test-buy operation, that they were engaged in selling shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride. SPO2 Teneros and SPO4 Alberto San Juan of OADDI-WPDC, U.N. Avenue, Manila applied for a search warrant before Branch 23 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila to authorize them to search the premises at 122 M. Hizon St., Caloocan City. Attached to the application was the After-Surveillance Report of SPO2 Teneros. It stated that Dante Baradilla, of 1726 Lallana St., corner Sta. Catalina St., Tondo, Manila, who claimed to be one of Federico Veronas runners in the illegal drugs operations, allegedly sought the assistance of SPO2 Teneros for the arrest of Verona. The search warrant was subsequently issued by Judge Bayhon authorizing the search of shabu and paraphernalia at No. 122 M. Hizon Street, Caloocan City. That about 10:30 oclock in the morning of 30 March 1996 at No. 122 SCL M. Hizon St., Kalookan City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable court, the above-named accused grouping herself together with some other persons whose liabilities are still being determined in a preliminary investigation, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession, custody and/or control, methamphetamine hydrochloride popularly known as shabu, a regulated drug, with a total weight of 230 grams, without the corresponding license and/or prescription to possess, have custody and/or control over the aforesaid regulated drug. Accused-appellant filed a motion to quash the search warrant asserting that she and her live-in partner Federico Verona had been leasing an apartment unit at No. 120 M. Hizon Street, District 2, Caloocan City, Metro Manila, since 1995 up to the present as certified by the owner of the apartment unit. The trial court denied the motion to quash and upheld the validity of the search warrant. the fact that the search warrant in question was served at apartment No. 120 and not at the specific address stated therein which is 122 M. Hizon St., Caloocan City will not by itself render as illegal the search and seizure of subject stuff seized by the operatives pursuant thereto.

Accused-appellant, on the other hand, maintains that the search was grossly infirm as the subject search warrant authorized the police authorities to search only No. 122 M. Hizon St., Caloocan City. However, the actual search was conducted at No. 120 M. Hizon St., Caloocan City. For the validity of a search warrant, the Constitution requires that there be a particular description of the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The rule is that a description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. Any designation or description known to the locality that leads the officer unerringly to it satisfies the constitutional requirement. Specifically, the requisites for the issuance of a valid search warrant are: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such presence is determined personally by the judge; (3) the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce are personally examined by the judge, in writing and under oath or affirmation; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The prevailing circumstances in the case at bar are definitely different from those in Veloso. At first glance, the description of the place to be searched in the warrant seems to be sufficient. However, from the application for a search warrant as well as the search warrant itself, the police officer serving the warrant cannot, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended precisely because it was wrongly described as No. 122, although it may have been located on the same street as No. 120. Even the description of the house by police asset Baradilla referred to that house located at No. 122 M. Hizon St., not at No. 120 M. Hizon St. The particularity of the place described is essential in the issuance of search warrants to avoid the exercise by the enforcing officers of discretion. Hence, the trial court erred in refusing to nullify the actions of the police officers who were perhaps swayed by their alleged knowledge of the place. The controlling subject of search warrants is the place indicated in the warrant itself and not the place identified by the police. It may well be that the police officer identified No. 120 M. Hizon St. as the subject of the actual search. However, as indicated in the witness affidavit in support of the application for a search warrant, No. 122 M. Hizon St. was unmistakably indicated. Inexplicably, a few days after the search warrant was issued by the court and served at No. 120 M. Hizon St., SPO2 Teneros informed Judge Bayhon in the return of search warrant that the warrant was properly served at 122 M. Hizon St., Caloocan City, Metro Manila as indicated in the search warrant itself. SPO2 Teneros attempted to explain the error by saying that he thought the house to be searched bore the address 122 M. Hizon St., Caloocan City instead of No.

120 M. Hizon St. But as this Court ruled in Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines v. Asuncion, thus: The police had no authority to search the apartment behind the store, which was the place indicated in the warrant, even if they really intended it to be the subject of their application. Indeed, the place to be searched cannot be changed, enlarged or amplified by the police. Consequently, all the items seized during the illegal search are prohibited from being used in evidence. Absent these items presented by the prosecution, the conviction of accused-appellant for the crime charged loses its basis. . In the return of search warrant, they admitted the seizure of cellular phones, money and television/monitoring device items that are not within the palest ambit of shabu paraphernalia, which were the only items authorized to be seized. What is more disturbing is the suggestion that some items seized were not reported in the return of search warrant, like the Fiat car, bankbooks, and money. In an attempt to justify the presence of the car in the police station, SPO2 Teneros had to concoct a most incredible story that the accused-appellant, whose pregnancy was already in the third trimester, drove her car to the police station after the intrusion at her house even if the police officers had with them several cars. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 127, Caloocan City, convicting accused-appellant of violation of Section 16, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425 and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00 as well as the costs, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For lack of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellant Annabelle Francisco y David @ Annabelle Tablan is ACQUITTED and is ordered immediately RELEASED from confinement, unless she is lawfully held in custody for another cause. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. YOLANDA GESMUNDO, accused-appellant. ISSUANCE OF SEARCH WARRANT, PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION, CONDUCT OF THE SEARCH SYLLABUS 1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; IRRECONCILABLE CONTRADICTIONS IN TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES CAST DOUBT ON GUILT OF ACCUSED. Irreconcilable and unexplained contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses cast doubt on the guilt of appellant and his culpability to the crime charged. (People of the Philippines vs. Romeo F. Remorosa)

2. ID.; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; SEARCH WARRANT; SEARCH MADE WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF OCCUPANT, HIGHLY IRREGULAR; CASE AT BAR. The claim of the accused-appellant that the marijuana was planted is strengthened by the manner in which the search was conducted by the police authorities. The accused-appellant was seated at the sala together with Sgt. Yte when they heard someone in the kitchen uttered "ito na." Apparently, the search of the accused-appellant's house was conducted in violation of Section 7, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court which specifically provides that no search of a house, room or any other premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, in the presence of two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. This requirement is mandatory to ensure regularity in the execution of the search warrant. Violation of said rule is in fact punishable under Article 130 of the Revised Penal Code. 3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; VIOLATIVE OF THE SPIRIT AND LETTER OF THE LAW. As we have ruled in Eduardo Quintero vs. The National Bureau of Investigation, et al. a procedure, wherein members of a raiding party can roam around the raided premises unaccompanied by any witness, as the only witnesses available as prescribed by law are made to witness a search conducted by the other members of the raiding party in another part of the house, is violative of both the spirit and the letter of the law. 4. ID.; EVIDENCE; ADMISSION; OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED, INADMISSIBLE. It is true that the police were able to get an admission from the accused-appellant that marijuana was found in her possession but said admission embodied in a document entitled "PAGPAPATUNAY" previously prepared by the police, is inadmissible in evidence against the accusedappellant for having been obtained in violation of her rights as a person under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense. The records show that the accused-appellant was not informed of her right not to sign the document; neither was she informed of her right to the assistance of counsel and the fact that the document may be used as evidence against her. 5. ID.; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; SEARCH; PROPERTY SEIZED MUST BE DELIVERED TO THE JUDGE WHO ISSUED THE WARRANT. Not only does the law require the presence of witnesses when the search is conducted, but it also imposes upon the person making the search the duty to issue a detailed receipt for the property seized. He is likewise required to deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant, together with a true and accurate inventory thereof duly verified under oath. Again, these duties are mandatory and are required to preclude substitution of the items seized by interested parties. 6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; EXCEPTION. The trial judge cites the case of Yee Sue Koy, et al. vs. Mariano Almeda, et al. (70 Phil. 141) to justify the retention by the police and the NBI of the custody of the allegedly confiscated specimens. While in said decision, this Court recognized the fact that the objects seized were retained

by the agents of the Anti-Usury Board, instead of being turned over to the Justice of the Peace of Sagay, yet the Court also held that it was "for the reason that the custody of said agents is the custody of the issuing officer or court, the retention having been approved by the latter." Thus, approval by the court which issued the search warrant is necessary for the retention of the property seized by the police officers; and only then will their custody be considered custody of the court. Absent such approval, the police officers have authority to retain possession of the marijuana and more so, to deliver the property to another agency, like the NBI. . in the morning of November 17, 1986, police officer Jose Luciano gave money and instructed his civilian informer to buy marijuana from the accused at the back of the Cocoland Hotel at Brgy. Del Remedio, San Pablo City, thereafter with another police officer, Luciano positioned himself at the ground floor of the hotel and watched. He actually saw the accused selling marijuana to his civilian informer by the door outside the house of the accused. Immediately thereafter, that same day Luciano applied for a search warrant. "At about 2:00 p.m. of that day, a raiding police team armed with Search Warrant No. 10 issued by Hon. Judge Geronima Pueblo Atanacio of RTC, Branch XXXII of the Court, went to the residence of the Brgy. Capt. Angel Capuno for them to be accompanied by him in serving the said warrant at the residence of the accused located at the Cocoland Compound of said barangay. "Upon reaching the residence of the accused, the police team were allowed entry inside the house on the strength of the said search warrant shown to the accused. The accused cried upon reading the contents of the warrant. She begged the team not to search and to leave her house. But the police team insisted on their search. The accused led the team into her kitchen and she pointed to a metal basin on top of a table as the hiding place of the dried marijuana flowering tops contained in a plastic bag marked ISETANN. The police also recovered from a native "uway" cabinet dried marijuana flowering tops wrapped separately in three (3) pieces of Komiks paper. After the discovery, the accused was photographed together with the confiscated items. Thereafter, accused was made to acknowledge in writing that the dried marijuana flowering tops were taken from her possession and control inside her residence. Brgy. Capt. Capuno also affixed his countersignature thereto. "The police forthwith brought the accused to the police station where she was properly booked. Pfc. Luciano, Pat. Rizalde Perez and Brgy. Captain Capuno executed their sworn statements. Furthermore, the claim of the accused-appellant that the marijuana was planted is strengthened by the manner in which the search was conducted by the police authorities. The accused-appellant was seated at the sala together with Sgt. Yte when they heard someone in the kitchen uttered "ito na". Apparently, the search of the accused-appellant's house was conducted in violation of Section 7, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court which specifically provides that no search of a house, room

or any other premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, in the presence of two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. This requirement is mandatory to ensure regularity in the execution of the search warrant. Violation of said rule is in fact punishable under Article 130 of the Revised Penal Code. WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is REVERSED, and on reasonable doubt, the appellant is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged. She is ordered immediately released from detention unless she is being held for some other legal cause or ground. SAMMY MALACAT y MANDAR, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. WARRANTLESS SEARCHES, STOP AND FRISK:REQUISITES

Rodolfo Yu of the Western Police District, Metropolitan Police Force of the Integrated National Police, Police Station No. 3, Quiapo, Manila, testified that on 27 August 1990, at about 6:30 p.m., in response to bomb threats reported seven days earlier, he was on foot patrol with three other police officers (all of them in uniform) along Quezon Boulevard, Quiapo, Manila, near the Mercury Drug store at Plaza Miranda. They chanced upon two groups of Muslim-looking men, with each group, comprised of three to four men, posted at opposite sides of the corner of Quezon Boulevard near the Mercury Drug Store. These men were acting suspiciously with "[t]heir eyes. . . moving very fast." 6 Yu and his companions positioned themselves at strategic points and observed both groups for about thirty minutes. The police officers then approached one group of men, who then fled in different directions. As the policemen gave chase, Yu caught up with and apprehended petitioner. Upon searching petitioner, Yu found a fragmentation grenade tucked inside petitioner's "front waist line." 7 Yu's companion, police officer Rogelio Malibiran, apprehended Abdul Casan from whom a .38 caliber revolver was recovered. Petitioner and Casan were then brought to Police Station No. 3 where Yu placed an "X" mark at the bottom of the grenade and thereafter gave it to his commander. 8 On cross-examination, Yu declared that they conducted the foot patrol due to a report that a group of Muslims was going to explode a grenade somewhere in the vicinity of Plaza Miranda. Yu recognized petitioner as the previous Saturday, 25 August 1990, likewise at Plaza Miranda, Yu saw petitioner and 2 others attempt to detonate a grenade. The attempt was aborted when Yu and other policemen chased petitioner and his companions; however, the former were unable to catch

any of the latter. Yu further admitted that petitioner and Casan were merely standing on the corner of Quezon Boulevard when Yu saw them on 27 August 1990. Although they were not creating a commotion, since they were supposedly acting suspiciously, Yu and his companions approached them. Yu did not issue any receipt for the grenade he allegedly recovered from petitioner. 9 Josefino G. Serapio declared that at about 9:00 a.m. of 28 August 1990, petitioner and a certain Abdul Casan were brought in by Sgt. Saquilla 10 for investigation. Forthwith, Serapio conducted the inquest of the two suspects, informing them of their rights to remain silent and to be assisted by competent and independent counsel. Despite Serapio's advice, petitioner and Casan manifested their willingness to answer questions even without the assistance of a lawyer. Serapio then took petitioner's uncounselled confession (Exh. "E"), there being no PAO lawyer available, wherein petitioner admitted possession of the grenade. Thereafter, Serapio prepared the affidavit of arrest and booking sheet of petitioner and Casan. Later, Serapio turned over the grenade to the Intelligence and Special Action Division (ISAD) of the Explosive Ordinance Disposal Unit for examination. 11 On cross-examination, Serapio admitted that he took petitioner's confession knowing it was inadmissible in evidence. 12 Orlando Ramilo, a member of the Bomb Disposal Unit, whose principal duties included, among other things, the examination of explosive devices, testified that on 22 March 1991, he received a request dated 19 March 1991 from Lt. Eduardo Cabrera and PO Diosdado Diotoy for examination of a grenade. Ramilo then affixed an orange tag on the subject grenade detailing his name, the date and time he received the specimen. During the preliminary examination of the grenade, he "[f]ound that [the] major components consisting of [a] high filler and fuse assembly [were] all present," and concluded that the grenade was "[l]ive and capable of exploding." On even date, he issued a certification stating his findings, a copy of which he forwarded to Diotoy on 11 August 1991. 13 Petitioner was the lone defense witness. He declared that he arrived in Manila on 22 July 1990 and resided at the Muslim Center in Quiapo, Manila. At around 6:30 in the evening of 27 August 1990, he went to Plaza Miranda to catch a breath of fresh air. Shortly after, several policemen arrived and ordered all males to stand aside. The policemen searched petitioner and two other men, but found nothing in their possession. However, he was arrested with two others, brought to and detained at Precinct No. 3, where he was accused of having shot a police officer. The officer showed the gunshot wounds he allegedly sustained and shouted at petitioner "[i]to ang tama mo sa akin." This officer then inserted the muzzle of his gun into petitioner's mouth and said, "[y]ou are the one who shot me." Petitioner denied the charges and explained that he only recently arrived in Manila. However, several other police officers mauled him, hitting him with benches and guns. Petitioner was once again searched, but nothing was found on him. He saw the grenade only in court when it was presented. 14

The trial court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of petitioner was akin to it a "stop and frisk," where a "warrant and seizure can be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest" and "whose object is either to maintain the status quo momentarily while the police officer seeks to obtain more information." 15 Probable cause was not required as it was not certain that a crime had been committed, however, the situation called for an investigation, hence to require probable cause would have been "premature." 16 The RTC emphasized that Yu and his companions were "[c]onfronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, threatens the destruction of evidence" 17 and the officers "[h]ad to act in haste," as petitioner and his companions were acting suspiciously, considering the time, place and "reported cases of bombing." Further, petitioner's group suddenly ran away in different directions as they saw the arresting officers approach, thus "[i]t is reasonable for an officer to conduct a limited search, the purpose of which is not necessarily to discover evidence of a crime, but to allow the officer to pursue his investigation without fear of violence." The trial court thus found petitioner guilty of the crime of illegal possession of explosives under Section 3 of P.D. No. 186. In sum, petitioner argued that the warrantless arrest was invalid due to absence of any of the conditions provided for in Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, citing People vs. Mengote. 23 As such, the search was illegal, and the hand grenade seized, inadmissible in evidence. The general rule as regards arrests, searches and seizures is that a warrant is needed in order to validly effect the same. 31 The Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable arrests, searches and seizures refers to those effected without a validly issued warrant, 32 subject to certain exceptions. As regards valid warrantless arrests, these are found in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which reads, in part: Sec. 5. Arrest, without warrant; when lawful A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped . . . A warrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated under Section 5(a) has been denominated as one "in flagrante delicto," while that under Section 5(b) has been described as a "hot pursuit" arrest. Turning to valid warrantless searches, they are limited to the following: (1) customs searches; (2) search of moving vehicles; (3) seizure of evidence in plain view; (4) consent searches; 33 (5) a search incidental to a lawful arrest; 34 and (6) a "stop and frisk." 35 In the instant petition, the trial court validated the warrantless search as a "stop and frisk" with "the seizure of the grenade from the accused [as an appropriate incident to his arrest," hence necessitating a brief discussion on the nature of these exceptions to the warrant requirement. At the outset, we note that the trial court confused the concepts of a "stop-andfrisk" and of a search incidental to a lawful arrest. These two types of warrantless searches differ in terms of the requisite quantum of proof before they may be validly effected and in their allowable scope. In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search, the legality of the arrest is questioned in a large majority of these cases, e.g., whether an arrest was merely used as a pretext for conducting a search. 36 In this instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made the process cannot be reversed. 37 At bottom, assuming a valid arrest, the arresting officer may search the person of the arrestee and the area within which the latter may reach for a weapon or for evidence to destroy, and seize any money or property found which was used in the commission of the crime, or the fruit of the crime, or that which may be used as evidence, or which might furnish the arrestee with the means of escaping or committing violence. 38 Here, there could have been no valid in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest preceding the search in light of the lack of personal knowledge on the part of Yu, the arresting officer, or an overt physical act, on the part of petitioner, indicating that a crime had just been committed, was being committed or was going to be committed. Having thus shown the invalidity of the warrantless arrest in this case, plainly, the search conducted on petitioner could not have been one incidental to a lawful arrest. Here, there are at least three (3) reasons why the "stop-and-frisk" was invalid:

First, we harbor grave doubts as to Yu's claim that petitioner was a member of the group which attempted to bomb Plaza Miranda two days earlier. This claim is neither supported by any police report or record nor corroborated by any other police officer who allegedly chased that group. Aside from impairing Yu's credibility as a witness, this likewise diminishes the probability that a genuine reason existed so as to arrest and search petitioner. If only to further tarnish the credibility of Yu's testimony, contrary to his claim that petitioner and his companions had to be chased before being apprehended, the affidavit of arrest (Exh. "A") expressly declares otherwise, i.e., upon arrival of five (5) other police officers, petitioner and his companions were "immediately collared." Second, there was nothing in petitioner's behavior or conduct which could have reasonably elicited even mere suspicion other than that his eyes were "moving very fast" an observation which leaves us incredulous since Yu and his teammates were nowhere near petitioner and it was already 6:30 p.m., thus presumably dusk. Petitioner and his companions were merely standing at the corner and were not creating any commotion or trouble, as Yu explicitly declared on cross-examination: Q And what were they doing? A They were merely standing. Q You are sure of that? A Yes, sir. Q And when you saw them standing, there were nothing or they did not create any commotion. A None, sir. Q Neither did you see them create commotion? A None, sir. 42 Third, there was at all no ground, probable or otherwise, to believe that petitioner was armed with a deadly weapon. None was visible to Yu, for as he admitted, the alleged grenade was "discovered" "inside the front waistline" of petitioner, and from all indications as to the distance between Yu and petitioner, any telltale bulge, assuming that petitioner was indeed hiding a grenade, could not have been visible to Yu. In fact, as noted by the trial court: When the policemen approached the accused and his companions, they were not yet aware that a handgrenade was

tucked inside his waistline. They did not see any bulging object in [sic] his person. 43 What is unequivocal then in this case are blatant violations of petitioner's rights solemnly guaranteed in Sections 2 and 12(1) of Article III of the Constitution. WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of the Seventeenth Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 15988 is SET ASIDE for lack of jurisdiction on the part of said Court and, on ground of reasonable doubt, the decision of 10 February 1994 of Branch 5 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila is REVERSED and petitioner SAMMY MALACAT y MANDAR is hereby ACQUITTED and ORDERED immediately released from detention, unless his further detention is justified for any other lawful cause. GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, represented by the Philippine Department of Justice, petitioner, vs. Hon. GUILLERMO G. PURGANAN, Morales, and Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 42; and MARK B. JIMENEZ a.k.a. MARIO BATACAN CRESPO, respondents. DUE PROCESS: ASPECTS OF DUE PROCESS, PROCEDURAL, HEARING. In extradition proceedings, are prospective extraditees entitled to notice and hearing before warrants for their arrest can be issued? Equally important, are they entitled to the right to bail and provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending? In general, the answer to these two novel questions is No. The explanation of and the reasons for, as well as the exceptions to, this rule are laid out in this Decision. Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the United States Government, through diplomatic channels, sent to the Philippine Government Note Verbale No. 0522 dated June 16, 1999, supplemented by Note Nos. 0597, 0720 and 0809 and accompanied by duly authenticated documents requesting the extradition of Mark B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo. Upon receipt of the Notes and documents, the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate action, pursuant to Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1069, also known as the Extradition Law. Upon learning of the request for his extradition, Jimenez sought and was granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by the RTC of Manila, Branch 25. The TRO prohibited the Department of Justice (DOJ) from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition. The validity of the TRO was, however, assailed by the SOJ in a Petition before this Court in the said GR No. 139465. Initially, the Court -- by a vote of 9-6 -- dismissed the Petition. The SOJ was ordered to furnish private respondent copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers

and to grant the latter a reasonable period within which to file a comment and supporting evidence. Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the SOJ, this Court issued its October 17, 2000 Resolution. By an identical vote of 9-6 -- after three justices changed their votes -- it reconsidered and reversed its earlier Decision. It held that private respondent was bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. This Resolution has become final and executory. Finding no more legal obstacle, the Government of the United States of America, represented by the Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC on May 18, 2001, the appropriate Petition for Extradition which was docketed as Extradition Case No. 01192061. The Petition alleged, inter alia, that Jimenez was the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 15, 1999. The warrant had been issued in connection with the following charges in Indictment No. 99-00281 CR-SEITZ: (1) conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit certain offenses in violation of Title 18 US Code Section 371; (2) tax evasion, in violation of Title 26 US Code Section 7201; (3) wire fraud, in violation of Title 18 US Code Sections 1343 and 2; (4) false statements, in violation of Title 18 US Code Sections 1001 and 2; and (5) illegal campaign contributions, in violation of Title 2 US Code Sections 441b, 441f and 437g(d) and Title 18 US Code Section 2. In order to prevent the flight of Jimenez, the Petition prayed for the issuance of an order for his immediate arrest pursuant to Section 6 of PD No. 1069. Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Respondent Jimenez filed before it an Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion, which prayed that petitioners application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. In its assailed May 23, 2001 Order, the RTC granted the Motion of Jimenez and set the case for hearing on June 5, 2001. In that hearing, petitioner manifested its reservations on the procedure adopted by the trial court allowing the accused in an extradition case to be heard prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. In his Memorandum, Jimenez sought an alternative prayer: that in case a warrant should issue, he be allowed to post bail in the amount of P100,000. The alternative prayer of Jimenez was also set for hearing on June 15, 2001. Thereafter, the court below issued its questioned July 3, 2001 Order, directing the 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. In sum, the substantive questions that this Court will address are: (1) whether Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant for his arrest can be issued, and (2) whether he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending. Preliminarily, we shall take up the alleged prematurity of the Petition for Certiorari arising from petitioners failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration in the RTC and to seek relief in the Court of Appeals (CA), instead of in this Court. No Violation of Due Process Respondent Jimenez cites the foreign case Paretti in arguing that, constitutionally, [n]o one shall be deprived of x x x liberty x x x without due process of law. Contrary to his contention, his detention prior to the conclusion of the extradition proceedings does not amount to a violation of his right to due process. We iterate the familiar doctrine that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard but, at the same time, point out that the doctrine does not always call for a prior opportunity to be heard. Where the circumstances -- such as those present in an extradition case -- call for it, a subsequent opportunity to be heard is enough. In the present case, respondent will be given full opportunity to be heard subsequently, when the extradition court hears the Petition for Extradition. Hence, there is no violation of his right to due process and fundamental fairness. Contrary to the contention of Jimenez, we find no arbitrariness, either, in the immediate deprivation of his liberty prior to his being heard. That his arrest and detention will not be arbitrary is sufficiently ensured by (1) the DOJs filing in court the Petition with its supporting documents after a determination that the extradition request meets the requirements of the law and the relevant treaty; (2) the extradition judges independent prima facie determination that his arrest will best serve the ends of justice before the issuance of a warrant for his arrest; and (3) his opportunity, once he is under the courts custody, to apply for bail as an exception to the no-initial-bail rule. It is also worth noting that before the US government requested the extradition of respondent, proceedings had already been conducted in that country. But because he left the jurisdiction of the requesting state before those proceedings could be completed, it was hindered from continuing with the due processes prescribed under its laws. His invocation of due process now has thus become hollow. He already had that opportunity in the requesting state; yet, instead of taking it, he ran away. In this light, would it be proper and just for the government to increase the risk of violating its treaty obligations in order to accord Respondent Jimenez his

personal liberty in the span of time that it takes to resolve the Petition for Extradition? His supposed immediate deprivation of liberty without the due process that he had previously shunned pales against the governments interest in fulfilling its Extradition Treaty obligations and in cooperating with the world community in the suppression of crime. Indeed, [c]onstitutional liberties do not exist in a vacuum; the due process rights accorded to individuals must be carefully balanced against exigent and palpable government interests. Too, we cannot allow our country to be a haven for fugitives, cowards and weaklings who, instead of facing the consequences of their actions, choose to run and hide. Hence, it would not be good policy to increase the risk of violating our treaty obligations if, through overprotection or excessively liberal treatment, persons sought to be extradited are able to evade arrest or escape from our custody. In the absence of any provision -- in the Constitution, the law or the treaty -- expressly guaranteeing the right to bail in extradition proceedings, adopting the practice of not granting them bail, as a general rule, would be a step towards deterring fugitives from coming to the Philippines to hide from or evade their prosecutors. WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed RTC Order dated May 23, 2001 is hereby declared NULL and VOID, while the challenged Order dated July 3, 2001 is SET ASIDE insofar as it granted bail to Respondent Mark Jimenez. The bail bond posted by private respondent is CANCELLED. The Regional Trial Court of Manila is directed to conduct the extradition proceedings before it, with all deliberate speed pursuant to the spirit and the letter of our Extradition Treaty with the United States as well as our Extradition Law. No costs. SO ORDERED.