Rodriguez vs. RTC of Manila
Rodriguez vs. RTC of Manila
_______________
* EN BANC.
291
court had already exercised its sound discretion and had already
determined that under the Constitution and laws in force, co-
petitioner is entitled to provisional release.
Extradition; Bail; Bail may be granted to a possible extraditee
only upon a clear and convincing showing (1) that he will not be a
flight risk or a danger to the community, and (2) that there exist
special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances.—We
emphasize that bail may be granted to a possible extraditee only
upon a clear and convincing showing (1) that he will not be a
flight risk or a danger to the community, and (2) that there exist
special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances. The trial
court’s immediate cancellation of the bail of petitioners is contrary
to our ruling in Purganan, and it had misread and misapplied our
directive therein.
Same; Same; The cancellation of petitioner’s bail, without
prior notice and hearing, could be considered a violation of co-
petitioner’s right to due process tantamount to grave abuse of
discretion.—Grave abuse of discretion is capricious or whimsical
exercise of judgment that is patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law. In our view, the cancellation of co-petitioner’s
bail, without prior notice and hearing, could be considered a
violation of co-petitioner’s right to due process tantamount to
grave abuse of discretion.
Same; Same; The grounds used by the highest court in the
requesting state for the grant of bail may be considered, under the
principle of reciprocity.—In Purganan, we held also that the
grounds used by the highest court in the requesting state for the
grant of bail may be considered, under the principle of reciprocity.
Considering that she has not been shown to be a flight risk nor a
danger to the community, she is entitled to notice and hearing
before her bail could be cancelled. Based on the record, we find
that, absent prior notice and hearing, the bail’s cancellation was
in violation of her right to due process.
QUISUMBING, J.:
_______________
293
the petitioners
5
and ordered the issuance of a warrant of
arrest, to wit:
II
_______________
294
III
_______________
295
_______________
296
_______________
10 District Magistrate Lawrence Leavitt of the U.S. District Court of
Nevada granted a $300,000 bail to Charlie “Atong” Ang, who is sought to
be extradited by the Philippine government.
<http://www.newsflash.org/2002/11/hl/hl016987.htm> (visited February 6,
2006).
11 G.R. No. 139465, 18 January 2000, 322 SCRA 160.
12 Id., at pp. 193-194.
13 Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, 17 October 2000,
343 SCRA 377.
297
_______________
14 Government of the United States of America v. Purganan, supra note
9 at pp. 661-663.
15 Id., at p. 656.
16 Id., at p. 674.
298
_______________
17 Id., at p. 667.
18 Zarate v. Maybank Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 160976, 8 June 2005,
459 SCRA 785, 794.
299
_______________
300
——o0o——
301