Mejia vs.

Pamaran [GRs L-56741-42, 15 April 1988] En Banc, Gancayco (J): 14 concur Facts: 6 ejectment cases were filed separately in t e !ity !ourt of "anila #y Euse#io $u a%ainst Feliciano F& Endan%an, Josefina "eim#an, 'eodorico Bontia, (olando )ntillon, Jose "a#alot and *icente *illamor& )ll cases were decided #y t e !ity !ourt of "anila a%ainst Endan%an, et& al&, all of w om appealed in due time to t e !ourt of First +nstance (!F+) of "anila, w ere t e cases were raffled to Branc ,,*+, presided o-er #y t e .onora#le Jose /& )lejandro (!i-il !ase 100124 to 100122)& 3n 10 )u%ust 1212, Endan%an, Bontia, )ntillon, "a#alot, and *illamor entered into a compromise a%reement wit $u w ere#y t e Endan%an, et& al& indi-idually recei-ed from $u t e sum of /4,555 in consideration of w ic Endan%an, et& al& a%reed to -acate t e premises in 6uestion and remo-e t eir ouses t erefrom wit in 65 days from t e date of t e e7ecution of t e a%reement, failin% w ic t e appellee s all a-e t e aut ority to demolis Endan%an, et& al&8s ouses wit costs t ereof c ar%ea#le a%ainst t em& ' e compromise a%reement was su#mitted to t e court& Josefina "eim#an did not join er co9defendants in enterin% into t e compromise a%reement& :p to t at sta%e of t e cases, t e counsel of record of t e defendants was )tty& ;& G& <oron& 3n 00 )u%ust 1212, )tty& "odesto (& Espano of t e !iti=ens $e%al )ssistant 3ffice (!$)3), wrote )tty& <oron to inform im t at "rs& "eim#an as sou% t t e assistance of t e !$)3 re%ardin% er case, and as>ed t at t e records of t e case #e sent to im& )s a conse6uence, )tty& <oron filed on ?5 )u%ust 1212 is motion to wit draw appearance as counsel for "eim#an in !i-il !ase 100124& @ ile Endan%an, Bontia, )ntillon, "a#alot and *illamor, a-e decided to settle wit $u t rou% compromise a%reement t at t ey si%ned, "eim#an resol-ed to prosecute er appeal in er own case, !i-il !ase 100124& @ en "eim#an followed up er case in Branc ,,*+ of t e !F+ of "anila and ad occasion to tal> to <anilo Buena-entura of t at Branc w o told er t at er case was already su#mitted for decision& ; e sou% t assistance from t e !$)3 w ere s e was instructed #y )tty& Espano to find out t e real status of t e case& ; e returned to t e court sometime in July 1212 and t at was w en s e first came to >now )tty& )urora "ejia w o told er t at t e case as not yet #een decided #ecause t ere was still one party w o as not si%ned t e compromise a%reement prepared #y )tty& <oron& )tty& "ejia also remar>ed t at s e was surprised w y ric people were elpin% in t at case, li>e a certain )tty& $u, a #rot er of Euse#io $u, w o as #een approac in% t e presidin% jud%eA and t en told er s e would elp t em pro-ided t ey %i-e /1,555 eac for a %ift to t e Jud%e, to w ic s e replied s e would #roac t e matter to er companions& From t e court, s e went to )tty& "odesto Espano and told t e lawyer t e case was not yet su#mitted& )tty& Espano instructed er to %et er papers from )tty& <oron, w ic s e did& ' ereafter, s e told /ilar Bautista, dau% ter of Jose "a#alot, and Gloria )ntonio, dau% ter of *icente *illamor, a#out t e elp offered #y )tty& "ejia& ' e two said t ey would t in> it o-er as t ey ad already si%ned somet in%& @ en s e went to t e court to deposit er rentals )tty& "ejia as>ed er if er companions were a%reea#le to t e su%%estion and s e replied s e ad already told t em and t at t ey would consider t e matter& 3n 05 Bo-em#er 1212, ;yl-ia <i=on y (esurreccion w o loaned "eim#an /455 accompanied t e latter to t e court& ; e was seated at t e corridor near t e door of )tty& "ejia8s office w ic was partially open, and s e saw "eim#an anded an en-elope to )tty& "ejia w o put it inside er des> drawer& 3n 1 <ecem#er 1212, t e date set for t e earin% of t e motion to wit draw t e compromise and to file memoranda filed #y /ilar Bautista and Gloria )ntonio in #e alf of

t eir fat ers, )tty& "ejia approac ed "eim#an and said no oppositor mi% t arri-e, and as>ed er if Bautista ad #rou% t 1C0 of t e /1,555&55& Bautista placed /655 in an en-elope and t e two of t em, Bautista and "eim#an, went to )tty& "ejia8s office& Bautista anded t e en-elope containin% t e money to )tty& "ejia w o recei-ed it& 3n ? ;eptem#er 12D5, )tty& "ejia attempted to #ri#e t e 'anod#ayan +n-esti%ator (! ristina !orall9/aterno), t rou% intricate %old c ain wit a pendant earin% an inscription of letter E!,E (w ic t e in-esti%ator returned t rou% an employee, <ante (amos)& !orall9/aterno in-esti%ated t e complaints of Josefina "eim#an and /ilar Bautista a%ainst )tty& )urora "ejia y (odri%ue= for -iolation of t e )nti9Graft and !orrupt /ractices )ct& 3n 0? )pril 12D1, t e ;andi%an#ayan, in !riminal !ase 12DD, found )urora "ejia y (odri%ue= %uilty #eyond reasona#le dou#t of -iolation of para%rap (#), ;ection ? of () ?512 and sentenced er to an indeterminate imprisonment ran%in% from 4 years and 1 day as minimum to 1 years as ma7imum, to suffer perpetual dis6ualification from pu#lic office and to indemnify t e -ictim Josefina "eim#an t e sum of /1,555&55 representin% t e money %i-en to er& ' e ;andi%an#ayan also found "ejia, in !riminal !ase 12D2, %uilty #eyond reasona#le dou#t of -iolation of para%rap (#), ;ection ? of () ?512 and li>ewise sentenced er to an indeterminate imprisonment ran%in% from 4 years and 1 day as minimum to 1 years as ma7imum, to suffer perpetual dis6ualification from pu#lic office and to indemnify t e -ictim /ilar Bautista t e amount of /455 representin% t e money %i-en to er& "ejia was also ordered to pay t e costs of t e proceedin%s& "ejia filed a petition for re-iew wit t e ;upreme !ourt& +ssue: @ et er /residential <ecree is an e79post facto law& .eld: ' e contention t at /residential <ecree 1656 is contrary to t e e7 post facto pro-ision of t e !onstitution is similarly premised on t e alle%ation t at Epetitioner8s ri% t of appeal is #ein% diluted or eroded efficacy wise&E "ejia alle%ed t at t e procedure pro-ided for #y t e ;andi%an#ayan are e7 post facto and ence all proceedin%s ta>en a%ainst er are -oid a# initio #ein% in -iolation of t e !onstitution& +t is furt er ar%ued t at only one sta%e of appeal is a-aila#le to "ejia under /< 1656 w ic effecti-ely depri-es er of t e intermediate recourse to t e !ourt of )ppeals and t at in said appeal to t e ;upreme !ourt only issues of law may #e raised and worse still t e appeal as #ecome a matter of discretion rat er t an a matter of ri% t& ) more searc in% scrutiny of its rationale would demonstrate t e lac> of persuasi-eness of suc an ar%ument& ' e Fay *ille%as Fami decision, promul%ated in 1215, supplies t e most recent and #indin% pronouncement on t e matter& 'o 6uote from t e ponencia of Justice "a>asiar: E)n e7 post facto law is one w ic : (1) ma>es criminal an act done #efore t e passa%e of t e law and w ic was innocent w en done, and punis es suc an actA (0) a%%ra-ates a crime, or ma>es it %reater t an it was, w en committedA (?) c an%es t e punis ment and inflicts a %reater punis ment t an t e law anne7ed to t e crime w en committedA (4) alters t e le%al rules of e-idence, and aut ori=es con-iction upon less or different testimony t an t e law re6uired at t e time of t e commission of t e offenseA (4) assumin% to re%ulate ci-il ri% ts and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or depri-ation of a ri% t for somet in% w ic w en done was lawful, and (6) depri-es a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to w ic e as #ecome entitled, suc as t e protection of a former con-iction or ac6uittal, or a proclamation of amnesty&E E-en t e most careful scrutiny of t e said definition fails to sustain "ejia8s claim& ' e Elawful protectionE to w ic an accused

E as #ecome entitledE is 6ualified, not %i-en a #road scope& +t ardly can #e ar%ued t at t e mode of procedure pro-ided for in t e statutory ri% t to appeal is t erein em#raced& An !i"a# vs. $%R, 69 P&%L 6'5 (194)* +a,-s )n "f( was filed #y t e ;olicitor9General on #e alf of respondent !+(& Bational $a#or :nion on t e ot er and prays for t e remandin% of t e case to !+( for a new trial& )n% 'i#ay filed an opposition for #ot t e motion for reconsideration of !+( and t e motion for a new trial #y t e Bational $a#or :nion (B$:)& 'ori#io 'eodoro owns and operates )n% 'i#ay, a leat er company w ic supplies t e / ilippine )rmy& B$: a-ers t at employer 'ori#io 'eodoro (of t e Bational @or>ersG Brot er ood HB@BI of )n% 'i#ay) made a false claim t at t ere was a s orta%e of leat er soles in )n% 'i#ay, ma>in% it necessary for im to lay off wor>ers& B$: alle%es t at suc claim was unsupported #y t e Bureau of !ustoms records and t e accounts of nati-e dealers of leat er& ;uc was just a sc eme adopted to disc ar%e all t e mem#ers of t e B$: from wor>& .ence, t ey say t at 'eodoro was %uilty of unfair la#or practice for discriminatin% a%ainst B$: and unjustly fa-orin% B@B& )s re%ards t e e7 i#its attac ed to t is case, B$: says t at t ese are so inaccessi#le to t e respondents t at e-en wit t e e7ercise of due dili%ence t ey could not #e e7pected to a-e o#tained t em and offered as e-idence in t e !+(& +n addition, t e attac ed documents and e7 i#its are of suc far9reac in% importance and effect t at t eir admission would necessarily mean t e modification and re-ersal of t e jud%ment rendered erein& Res.l/-i.n an0 1isp.si-i.n ' e court o#ser-ed t at, e7cept as to t e alle%ed a%reement #etween t e )n% 'i#ay and t e B@B, t e record is #arren and does not satisfy t e t irst for a factual #asis upon w ic to predicate a conclusion of law Hsee /rimary cardinal re6uirements #elowI& ' erefore, in t e interest of justice, a new trial s ould commence %i-in% t e mo-ant t e opportunity to present new e-idence& "f( denied& "otion for new trial %ranted& !ase remanded to !+(& $2ara,-eri3a-i.n .4 $%R ;pecial court w ose functions are stated in !) Bo& 15? "ore of an administrati-e #oard t an a part of t e inte%rated judicial system Function is more acti-e, affirmati-e, dynamic

!an ta>e co%ni=ance of industrial or a%ricultural dispute causin% or li>ely to cause a stri>e or loc>out pro-ided t at ' e num#er of employees in-ol-ed e7ceeds ?5 ;uc dispute is su#mitted to t e !ourt #y t e $a#or ;ec& or #y any C #ot of t e parties to t e contro-ersy and certified #y $a#or ;ec& as proper to #e dealt wit #y t e court +n-esti%ates and studies all pertinent facts related to t e industry concerned w en directed #y t e /. /resident ' ere is a min%lin% of e7ecuti-e and judicial functions, a departure from t e ri%id doctrine of t e separation of %o-ernmental powers +n Goseco -& !+(, t e !ourt said t at !) 15? re6uires !+( to Jact accordin% to justice and e6uity and su#stantial merits of t e case, wit out re%ard to tec nicalities or le%al forms and s all not #e #ound #y any tec nicalities or le%al forms and s all not #e #ound #y any tec nical rules of le%al e-idence #ut may inform its mind in suc manner as it may deem just and e6uita#le&K .3@E*E(, t is does B3' mean t at !+( can entirely i%nore or disre%ard t e fundamental and essential re6uirements of due process in trials and in-esti%ations of an administrati-e c aracter& $ar0inal primar# re5/iremen-s .4 0/e pr.,ess in a0minis-ra-ive pr.,ee0in s 1& (i% t to a earin%, includin% t e ri% t to present oneGs own case and su#mit e-idence in support t ereof 0& 'ri#unal must consider t e e-idence presented ?& <ecision must a-e somet in% to support itself 4& E-idence must #e su#stantial 1& +t must #e rele-ant as a reasona#le mind mi% t accept it as ade6uate to support a conclusion 0& ' e rules of e-idence s all not #e controllin% so t at t e mere admission of matter w ic would #e deemed incompetent in judicial proceedin%s would not in-alidate t e administrati-e order ?& "ere uncorro#orated earsay or rumor does B3' constitute su#stantial e-idence 4& <ecision must #e rendered on t e e-idence presented at t e earin%, or at least contained in t e record and disclosed to t e parties affected 1& 3n #oards of in6uiry 1& ' ey may #e appointed for t e purpose of in-esti%atin% and determinin% t e facts in any %i-en case 0& ' eir report and decision are only ad-isory ?& !+( may refer any industrial or a%ricultural dispute to a #oard of in6uiry, fiscal, justice of t e peace, any pu#lic official #ut

E7ercises judicial C 6uasi9judicial functions in t e determination of disputes #etween employers and employees .as jurisdiction o-er t e entire /. re: matters concernin% employer9employee, landlord9tenantCfarm9la#orer relations

suc dele%ation s all not affect t e e7ercise of t e !ourt itself or any of its powers 6& !+( or any of its jud%es must act on its or is own independent consideration of t e law and facts of t e contro-ersy, and not simply accept t e -iews of a su#ordinate in arri-in% at t e decision 1& !+( s ould render its decision in suc a manner t at t e parties can >now t e issues in-ol-ed and t e reasons for t e decisions rendered& 67$R7!AR8 9+ :;6!%$7 v. LA<!%9< F)!';: ;ecretary 3f Justice Fran>lin <rilon, representin% t e Go-ernment of t e (epu#lic of t e / ilippines, si%ned in "anila t e Je7tradition 'reaty Between t e Go-ernment of t e / ilippines and t e Go-ernment of t e :&;&)& ' e / ilippine ;enate ratified t e said 'reaty& 3n June 1D, 1222, t e <epartment of Justice recei-ed from t e <epartment of Forei%n )ffairs :&; Bote *er#ale Bo& 5400 containin% a re6uest for t e e7tradition of pri-ate respondent "ar> Jimine= to t e :nited ;tates& 3n t e same day petitioner desi%nate and aut ori=in% a panel of attorneys to ta>e c ar%e of and to andle t e case& /endin% e-aluation of t e aforestated e7tradition documents, "ar> Jimine= t rou% counsel, wrote a letter to Justice ;ecretary re6uestin% copies of t e official e7tradition re6uest from t e :&; Go-ernment and t at e #e %i-en ample time to comment on t e re6uest after e s all a-e recei-ed copies of t e re6uested papers #ut t e petitioner denied t e re6uest for t e consistency of )rticle 1 of t e (/9:; E7tradition 'reaty stated in )rticle 1 t at t e / ilippine Go-ernment must present t e interests of t e :nited ;tates in any proceedin%s arisin% out of a re6uest for e7tradition& +;;:E: @ et er or not to up old a citi=enGs #asic due process ri% ts or t e %o-ernmentGs ironclad duties under a treaty& (:$+BG: /etition dismissed& ' e uman ri% ts of person, w et er citi=en or alien, and t e ri% ts of t e accused %uaranteed in our !onstitution s ould ta>e precedence o-er treaty ri% ts claimed #y a contractin% state& ' e duties of t e %o-ernment to t e indi-idual deser-e preferential consideration w en t ey collide wit its treaty o#li%ations to t e %o-ernment of anot er state& ' is is so alt ou% we reco%ni=e treaties as a source of #indin% o#li%ations under %enerally accepted principles of international law incorporated in our !onstitution as part of t e law of t e land& ' e doctrine of incorporation is applied w ene-er municipal tri#unals are confronted wit situation in w ic t ere appears to #e a conflict #etween a rule of international law and t e pro-ision of t e constitution or statute of t e local state& /etitioner (;ecretary of Justice) is ordered to furnis "ar> Jimene= copies of t e e7tradition re6uest and its supportin% papers, and to %rant im ("ar> Jimene=) a reasona#le period wit in w ic to file is comment wit supportin% e-idence&

J:nder t e <octrine of +ncorporation, rules of international law form part of t e law of t e land and no furt er le%islati-e action is needed to ma>e suc rules applica#le in t e domestic sp ere& J' e doctrine of incorporation is applied w ene-er municipal tri#unals are confronted wit situations in w ic t ere appears to #e a conflict #etween a rule of international law and t e pro-isions of t e constitution or statute of t e local state& JEfforts s ould first #e e7erted to armoni=e t em, so as to %i-e effect to #ot since it is to #e presumed t at municipal law was enacted wit proper re%ard for t e %enerally accepted principles of international law in o#ser-ance of t e incorporation clause in t e a#o-e cited constitutional pro-ision& J+n a situation, owe-er, w ere t e conflict is irreconcila#le and a c oice as to #e made #etween a rule of international law and a municipal law, jurisprudence dictates t at municipal law s ould #e up eld #y t e municipal courts, for t e reason t at suc courts are or%ans of municipal law and are accordin%ly #ound #y it in all circumstances& J' e fact t at international law as #een made part of t e law of t e land does not pertain to or imply t e primacy of international law o-er national or municipal law in t e municipal sp ere& ' e doctrine of incorporation, as applied in most countries, decrees t at rules of international law are %i-en e6ual standin% wit , #ut are not superior to, national le%islati-e enactments& )ccordin%ly, t e principle le7 posterior dero%ate priori ta>es effect L a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty& +n states w ere t e !onstitution is t e i% est law of t e land, suc as t e (epu#lic of t e / ilippines, #ot statutes and treaties may #e in-alidated if t ey are in conflict wit t e constitution& G.v=-. .4 -2e ;6A vs. P/r anan, G.R. <.. 148571, 6ep-. 24, 2))2 +A$!6> /ursuant to t e e7istin% (/9:; E7tradition 'reaty, t e :; Go-ernment re6uested t e e7tradition of "ar> Jimene=& ) earin% was eld to determine w et er a warrant of arrest s ould #e issued& )fterwards, suc warrant was issued #ut t e trial court allowed Jimene= to post #ail for is pro-isional li#erty& %66;7> ?2e-2er .r n.- e@-ra0i-ee is en-i-le0 -. n.-i,e an0 2earin "e4.re iss/an,e .4 Aarran- .4 arres ?2e-2er .r n.- -2e ri 2- -. "ail is availa"le in e@-ra0i-i.n pr.,ee0in s

R;L%<G> Fi-e /ostulates of E7tradition 1& E7tradition +s a "ajor +nstrument for t e ;uppression of !rime&

First, e7tradition treaties are entered into for t e purpose of suppressin% crime #y facilitatin% t e arrest and t e custodial transfer of a fu%iti-e from one state to t e ot er& @it t e ad-ent of easier and faster means of international tra-el, t e fli% t of affluent criminals from one country to anot er for t e purpose of committin% crime and e-adin% prosecution as #ecome more fre6uent& )ccordin%ly, %o-ernments are adjustin% t eir met ods of dealin% wit criminals and crimes t at transcend international #oundaries& 'oday, Ja majority of nations in t e world community a-e come to loo> upon e7tradition as t e major effecti-e instrument of international co9operation in t e suppression of crime&KH?5I +t is t e only re%ular system t at as #een de-ised to return fu%iti-es to t e jurisdiction of a court competent to try t em in accordance wit municipal and international law& 777 +ndeed, in t is era of %lo#ali=ation, easier and faster international tra-el, and an e7pandin% rin% of international crimes and criminals, we cannot afford to #e an isolationist state& @e need to cooperate wit ot er states in order to impro-e our c ances of suppressin% crime in our own country& 0& ' e (e6uestin% ;tate @ill )ccord <ue /rocess to t e )ccused ;econd, an e7tradition treaty presupposes t at #ot parties t ereto a-e e7amined, and t at #ot accept and trust, eac ot erGs le%al system and judicial process& "ore pointedly, our duly aut ori=ed representati-eGs si%nature on an e7tradition treaty si%nifies our confidence in t e capacity and t e willin%ness of t e ot er state to protect t e #asic ri% ts of t e person sou% t to #e e7tradited& ' at si%nature si%nifies our full fait t at t e accused will #e %i-en, upon e7tradition to t e re6uestin% state, all rele-ant and #asic ri% ts in t e criminal proceedin%s t at will ta>e place t ereinA ot erwise, t e treaty would not a-e #een si%ned, or would a-e #een directly attac>ed for its unconstitutionality& ?& ' e /roceedin%s )re ;ui Generis ' ird, as pointed out in ;ecretary of Justice -& $antion, e7tradition proceedin%s are not criminal in nature& +n criminal proceedin%s, t e constitutional ri% ts of t e accused are at foreA in e7tradition w ic is sui %eneris 99 in a class #y itself 99 t ey are not& J)n e7tradition Hproceedin%I is sui %eneris& +t is not a criminal proceedin% w ic will call into operation all t e ri% ts of an accused as %uaranteed #y t e Bill of (i% ts& 'o #e%in wit , t e process of e7tradition does not in-ol-e t e determination of t e %uilt or innocence of an accused& .is %uilt or innocence will #e adjud%ed in t e court of t e state w ere e will #e e7tradited& .ence, as a rule, constitutional ri% ts t at are only rele-ant to determine t e %uilt or innocence of an accused cannot #e in-o>ed #y an e7traditee 7 7 7& 777777777

J' ere are ot er differences #etween an e7tradition proceedin% and a criminal proceedin%& )n e7tradition proceedin% is summary in nature w ile criminal proceedin%s in-ol-e a full9 #lown trial& +n contradistinction to a criminal proceedin%, t e rules of e-idence in an e7tradition proceedin% allow admission of e-idence under less strin%ent standards& +n terms of t e 6uantum of e-idence to #e satisfied, a criminal case re6uires proof #eyond reasona#le dou#t for con-iction w ile a fu%iti-e may #e ordered e7tradited Mupon s owin% of t e e7istence of a prima facie case&G Finally, unli>e in a criminal case w ere jud%ment #ecomes e7ecutory upon #ein% rendered final, in an e7tradition proceedin%, our courts may adjud%e an indi-idual e7tradita#le #ut t e /resident as t e final discretion to e7tradite im& ' e :nited ;tates ad eres to a similar practice w ere#y t e ;ecretary of ;tate e7ercises wide discretion in #alancin% t e e6uities of t e case and t e demands of t e nationGs forei%n relations #efore ma>in% t e ultimate decision to e7tradite&K Gi-en t e fore%oin%, it is e-ident t at t e e7tradition court is not called upon to ascertain t e %uilt or t e innocence of t e person sou% t to #e e7tradited& ;uc determination durin% t e e7tradition proceedin%s will only result in needless duplication and delay& E7tradition is merely a measure of international judicial assistance t rou% w ic a person c ar%ed wit or con-icted of a crime is restored to a jurisdiction wit t e #est claim to try t at person& +t is not part of t e function of t e assistin% aut orities to enter into 6uestions t at are t e prero%ati-e of t at jurisdiction& ' e ultimate purpose of e7tradition proceedin%s in court is only to determine w et er t e e7tradition re6uest complies wit t e E7tradition 'reaty, and w et er t e person sou% t is e7tradita#le& 4& !ompliance ; all Be in Good Fait & Fourt , our e7ecuti-e #ranc of %o-ernment -oluntarily entered into t e E7tradition 'reaty, and our le%islati-e #ranc ratified it& .ence, t e 'reaty carries t e presumption t at its implementation will ser-e t e national interest& Fulfillin% our o#li%ations under t e E7tradition 'reaty promotes comity wit t e re6uestin% state& 3n t e ot er and, failure to fulfill our o#li%ations t ereunder paints a #ad ima%e of our country #efore t e world community& ;uc failure would discoura%e ot er states from enterin% into treaties wit us, particularly an e7tradition treaty t at in%es on reciprocity& *erily, we are #ound #y pacta sunt ser-anda to comply in %ood fait wit our o#li%ations under t e 'reaty& ' is principle re6uires t at we deli-er t e accused to t e re6uestin% country if t e conditions precedent to e7tradition, as set fort in t e 'reaty, are satisfied& +n ot er words, JHtI e demandin% %o-ernment, w en it as done all t at t e treaty and t e law re6uire it to do, is entitled to t e deli-ery of t e accused on t e issue of t e proper warrant, and t e ot er %o-ernment is under o#li%ation to ma>e t e surrender&K )ccordin%ly, t e / ilippines must #e ready and in a position to deli-er t e accused, s ould it #e found proper& 4& ' ere +s an :nderlyin% (is> of Fli% t Fift , persons to #e e7tradited are presumed to #e fli% t ris>s& ' is prima facie presumption

finds reinforcement in t e e7perience of t e e7ecuti-e #ranc : not in% s ort of confinement can ensure t at t e accused will not flee t e jurisdiction of t e re6uested state in order to t wart t eir e7tradition to t e re6uestin% state& ' e present e7tradition case furt er -alidates t e premise t at persons sou% t to #e e7tradited a-e a propensity to flee& +ndeed, e7tradition earin%s would not e-en #e%in, if only t e accused were willin% to su#mit to trial in t e re6uestin% country& /rior acts of erein respondent 99 (1) lea-in% t e re6uestin% state ri% t #efore t e conclusion of is indictment proceedin%s t ereA and (0) remainin% in t e re6uested state despite learnin% t at t e re6uestin% state is see>in% is return and t at t e crimes e is c ar%ed wit are #aila#le 99 elo6uently spea> of is a-ersion to t e processes in t e re6uestin% state, as well as is predisposition to a-oid t em at all cost& ' ese circumstances point to an e-er9present, underlyin% i% ris> of fli% t& .e as demonstrated t at e as t e capacity and t e will to flee& .a-in% fled once, w at is t ere to stop im, %i-en sufficient opportunity, from fleein% a second timeN <ue /rocess +s an e7traditee entitled to notice and earin% #efore t e issuance of a warrant of arrestN +t is si%nificant to note t at ;ection 6 of /< 1562, our E7tradition $aw, uses t e word JimmediateK to 6ualify t e arrest of t e accused& ' is 6ualification would #e rendered nu%atory #y settin% for earin% t e issuance of t e arrest warrant& .earin% entails sendin% notices to t e opposin% parties, recei-in% facts and ar%uments from t em, and %i-in% t em time to prepare and present suc facts and ar%uments& )rrest su#se6uent to a earin% can no lon%er #e considered Jimmediate&K ' e law could not a-e intended t e word as a mere superfluity #ut, on t e w ole, as a means of impartin% a sense of ur%ency and swiftness in t e determination of w et er a warrant of arrest s ould #e issued& By usin% t e p rase Jif it appears,K t e law furt er con-eys t at accuracy is not as important as speed at suc early sta%e& ' e trial court is not e7pected to ma>e an e7 austi-e determination to ferret out t e true and actual situation, immediately upon t e filin% of t e petition& From t e >nowled%e and t e material t en a-aila#le to it, t e court is e7pected merely to %et a %ood first impression 99 a prima facie findin% 99 sufficient to ma>e a speedy initial determination as re%ards t e arrest and detention of t e accused& 777 E-en ;ection 0 of )rticle +++ of our !onstitution, w ic is in-o>ed #y Jimene=, does not re6uire a notice or a earin% #efore t e issuance of a warrant of arrest& +t pro-ides: J;ec& 0& ' e ri% t of t e people to #e secure in t eir persons, ouses, papers, and effects a%ainst unreasona#le searc es and sei=ures of w ate-er nature and for any purpose s all #e in-iola#le, and no searc warrant or warrant of arrest s all issue e7cept upon pro#a#le cause to #e determined personally #y t e jud%e after e7amination under oat or affirmation of t e complainant and t e witnesses e may produce, and particularly descri#in% t e place to #e searc ed and t e persons or t in%s to #e sei=ed&K

'o determine pro#a#le cause for t e issuance of arrest warrants, t e !onstitution itself re6uires only t e e7amination 99 under oat or affirmation 99 of complainants and t e witnesses t ey may produce& ' ere is no re6uirement to notify and ear t e accused #efore t e issuance of warrants of arrest& 777 )t most, in cases of clear insufficiency of e-idence on record, jud%es merely furt er e7amine complainants and t eir witnesses& +n t e present case, -alidatin% t e act of respondent jud%e and institutin% t e practice of earin% t e accused and is witnesses at t is early sta%e would #e discordant wit t e rationale for t e entire system& +f t e accused were allowed to #e eard and necessarily to present e-idence durin% t e prima facie determination for t e issuance of a warrant of arrest, w at would stop im from presentin% is entire plet ora of defenses at t is sta%e 99 if e so desires 99 in is effort to ne%ate a prima facie findin%N ;uc a procedure could con-ert t e determination of a prima facie case into a full9#lown trial of t e entire proceedin%s and possi#ly ma>e trial of t e main case superfluous& ' is scenario is also anat ema to t e summary nature of e7traditions& ' at t e case under consideration is an e7tradition and not a criminal action is not sufficient to justify t e adoption of a set of procedures more protecti-e of t e accused& +f a different procedure were called for at all, a more restricti-e one 99 not t e opposite 99 would #e justified in -iew of respondentGs demonstrated predisposition to flee& (i% t to Bail E7tradition <ifferent from 3rdinary !riminal /roceedin%s @e a%ree wit petitioner& )s su%%ested #y t e use of t e word Jcon-iction,K t e constitutional pro-ision on #ail 6uoted a#o-e, as well as ;ection 4 of (ule 114 of t e (ules of !ourt, applies only w en a person as #een arrested and detained for -iolation of / ilippine criminal laws& +t does not apply to e7tradition proceedin%s, #ecause e7tradition courts do not render jud%ments of con-iction or ac6uittal& "oreo-er, t e constitutional ri% t to #ail Jflows from t e presumption of innocence in fa-or of e-ery accused w o s ould not #e su#jected to t e loss of freedom as t ereafter e would #e entitled to ac6uittal, unless is %uilt #e pro-ed #eyond reasona#le dou#t&K +t follows t at t e constitutional pro-ision on #ail will not apply to a case li>e e7tradition, w ere t e presumption of innocence is not at issue& ' e pro-ision in t e !onstitution statin% t at t e Jri% t to #ail s all not #e impaired e-en w en t e pri-ile%e of t e writ of a#eas corpus is suspendedK does not detract from t e rule t at t e constitutional ri% t to #ail is a-aila#le only in criminal proceedin%s& +t must #e noted t at t e suspension of t e pri-ile%e of t e writ of a#eas corpus finds application Jonly to persons judicially c ar%ed for re#ellion or offenses in erent in or directly connected wit in-asion&K .ence, t e second sentence in t e constitutional pro-ision on #ail merely emp asi=es t e

ri% t to #ail in criminal proceedin%s for t e aforementioned offenses& +t cannot #e ta>en to mean t at t e ri% t is a-aila#le e-en in e7tradition proceedin%s t at are not criminal in nature& ' at t e offenses for w ic Jimene= is sou% t to #e e7tradited are #aila#le in t e :nited ;tates is not an ar%ument to %rant im one in t e present case& 'o stress, e7tradition proceedin%s are separate and distinct from t e trial for t e offenses for w ic e is c ar%ed& .e s ould apply for #ail #efore t e courts tryin% t e criminal cases a%ainst im, not #efore t e e7tradition court& E7ceptions to t e JBo BailK (ule ' e rule, we repeat, is t at #ail is not a matter of ri% t in e7tradition cases& .owe-er, t e judiciary as t e constitutional duty to cur# %ra-e a#use of discretion and tyranny, as well as t e power to promul%ate rules to protect and enforce constitutional ri% ts& Furt ermore, we #elie-e t at t e ri% t to due process is #road enou% to include t e %rant of #asic fairness to e7traditees& +ndeed, t e ri% t to due process e7tends to t e Jlife, li#erty or propertyK of e-ery person& +t is Jdynamic and resilient, adapta#le to e-ery situation callin% for its application&K )ccordin%ly and to #est ser-e t e ends of justice, we #elie-e and so old t at, after a potential e7traditee as #een arrested or placed under t e custody of t e law, #ail may #e applied for and %ranted as an e7ception, only upon a clear and con-incin% s owin% (1) t at, once %ranted #ail, t e applicant will not #e a fli% t ris> or a dan%er to t e communityA and (0) t at t ere e7ist special, umanitarian and compellin% circumstances includin%, as a matter of reciprocity, t ose cited #y t e i% est court in t e re6uestin% state w en it %rants pro-isional li#erty in e7tradition cases t erein& ;ince t is e7ception as no e7press or specific statutory #asis, and since it is deri-ed essentially from %eneral principles of justice and fairness, t e applicant #ears t e #urden of pro-in% t e a#o-e two9tiered re6uirement wit clarity, precision and emp atic forcefulness& ' e !ourt reali=es t at e7tradition is #asically an e7ecuti-e, not a judicial, responsi#ility arisin% from t e presidential power to conduct forei%n relations& +n its #arest concept, it parta>es of t e nature of police assistance amon%st states, w ic is not normally a judicial prero%ati-e& .ence, any intrusion #y t e courts into t e e7ercise of t is power s ould #e c aracteri=ed #y caution, so t at t e -ital international and #ilateral interests of our country will not #e unreasona#ly impeded or compromised& +n s ort, w ile t is !ourt is e-er protecti-e of Jt e sportin% idea of fair play,K it also reco%ni=es t e limits of its own prero%ati-es and t e need to fulfill international o#li%ations& Bail is a Matter of Discretion on the part of Appellate Court G.vernmen- .4 &.n B.n 6pe,ial A0minis-ra-ive Re i.n v. :/0 e 9lalia, :r. an0 M/C.3, G( Bo& 14?614, )pril 12, 0551 Facts: Juan "uOo= was c ar%ed #efore a .on% Fon% !ourt wit se-eral counts of offenses in -iolation of .on% Fon% laws& +f con-icted, e faces a jail term of 1 to 14 years for eac c ar%e& )fter Juan "uOo= was arrested in t e / ilippines, t e .on% Fon% ;pecial )dministrati-e (e%ion filed wit t e ('! of "anila a petition for t e e7tradition of Juan

"uOo=& 3n <ecem#er 05, 0551, Jud%e , of ('!9"anila allowed Juan "uOo= to post #ail& .owe-er, t e %o-ernment of .on% Fon% alle%ed t at t e trial court committed %ra-e a#use of discretion amountin% to lac> or e7cess of jurisdiction in admittin% im to #ail #ecause Jt ere is not in% in t e !onstitution or statutory law pro-idin% t at a potential e7traditee a ri% t to #ail, t e ri% t #ein% limited solely to criminal proceedin%s&K +ssue: "ay Juan "uOo=, a potential e7tradite, #e %ranted #ail on t e #asis of clear and con-incin% e-idence t at e is not a fli% t ris> and will a#ide wit all t e orders and processes of t e e7tradition courtN ;:GGE;'E< )B;@E(: Pes& +n a unanimous decision t e ;! remanded to t e "anila ('!, to determine w et er Juan "uOo= is entitled to #ail on t e #asis of Jclear and con-incin% e-idence&K +f "uOo= is not entitled to suc , t e trial court s ould order t e cancellation of is #ail #ond and is immediate detentionA and t ereafter, conduct t e e7tradition proceedin%s wit dispatc & J+f #ail can #e %ranted in deportation cases, we see no justification w y it s ould not also #e allowed in e7tradition cases& $i>ewise, considerin% t at t e :ni-ersal <eclaration of .uman (i% ts applies to deportation cases, t ere is no reason w y it cannot #e in-o>ed in e7tradition cases& )fter all, #ot are administrati-e proceedin% w ere t e innocence or %uilt of t e person detained is not in issue,K t e !ourt said& !itin% t e -arious international treaties %i-in% reco%nition and protection to uman ri% ts, t e !ourt saw t e need to ree7amine its rulin% in Go-ernment of :nited ;tates of )merica -& Jud%e /ur%anan w ic limited t e e7ercise of t e ri% t to #ail to criminal proceedin%s& +t said t at w ile our e7tradition law does not pro-ide for t e %rant of #ail to an e7traditee, t ere is no pro-ision pro i#itin% im or er from filin% a motion for #ail, a ri% t under t e !onstitution& +t furt er said t at e-en if a potential e7tradite is a criminal, an e7tradition proceedin% is not #y its nature criminal, for it is not punis ment for a crime, e-en t ou% suc punis ment may follow e7tradition& +t added t at Je7tradition is not a trial to determine t e %uilt or innocence of potential e7traditee& Bor is it a full9#lown ci-il action, #ut one t at is merely administrati-e in c aracter& (G( Bo& 14?614, Go-ernment of .on% Fon% ;pecial )dministrati-e (e%ion -& Jud%e 3lalia, Jr& and "uOo=, )pril 12, 0551) Bote: +n Go-ernment of :nited ;tates of )merica -& Jud%e /ur%anan, ;eptem#er 04, 0550, ' e ;! ruled t at "ar> Jimene= is not entitled to t e ri% t to #ail and pro-isional li#erty w ile t e e7tradition proceedin%s are pendin% e7cept upon a clear and con-incin% s owin% (1) t at, once %ranted #ail, t e applicant will not #e a fli% t ris> or a dan%er to t e communityA and (0) t at t ere e7ist special, umanitarian and compellin% circumstances&

1i.s0a0. G/3man vs. <a-i.nal ;niversi-# Facts: /etitioners <iosdado Gu=man, :lysses :r#i=tondo and )riel (amacula, students of respondent Bational :ni-ersity, a-e come to t is !ourt to see> relief from w at t ey descri#e as t eir sc ool8s Econtinued and persistent refusal to allow t em to enrol&E +n t eir petition Efor e7traordinary le%al and e6uita#le remedies wit prayer for preliminary mandatory injunctionE dated )u%ust 1, 12D4, t ey alle%ed t at t ey were denied due to t e fact t at t ey were acti-e participation in peaceful mass actions wit in t e premises of t e :ni-ersity& ' e respondents on t e ot er and claimed t at t e petitionersG failure to enroll for t e first semester of t e sc ool year 12D4912D4 is due to t eir own fault and not #ecause of t eir alle%ed e7ercise of t eir constitutional and uman ri% ts& ' at as re%ards to Gu=man, is academic s owin% was poor due to is acti-ities in leadin% #oycotts of classes& ' at Gu=man Jis facin% criminal c ar%es for malicious misc ief #efore t e "etropolitan 'rial !ourt of "anila in connection wit t e destruction of properties of respondent :ni-ersity& ' e petitioners a-e Jfailures in t eir records, and are not of %ood sc olastic standin%&K .eld: +mmediately apparent from a readin% of respondents8 comment and memorandum is t e fact t at t ey ad ne-er conducted proceedin%s of any sort to determine w et er or not petitioners9students ad indeed led or participated Ein acti-ities wit in t e uni-ersity premises, conducted wit out prior permit from sc ool aut orities, t at distur#ed or disrupted classes t ereinE ? or perpetrated acts of E-andalism, coercion and intimidation, slander, noise #arra%e and ot er acts s owin% disdain for and defiance of :ni-ersity aut ority&E 4 /arent etically, t e pendency of a ci-il case for dama%es and a criminal case for malicious misc ief a%ainst petitioner Gu=man, cannot, wit out more, furnis sufficient warrant for is e7pulsion or de#arment from re9enrollment& )lso apparent is t e omission of respondents to cite t is !ourt to any duly pu#lis ed rule of t eirs #y w ic students may #e e7pelled or refused re9 enrollment for poor sc olastic standin%& ' ere are wit al minimum standards w ic must #e met to satisfy t e demands of procedural due processA and t ese are, t at (1) t e students must #e informed in writin% of t e nature and cause of any accusation a%ainst t emA (0) t ey s a% a-e t e ri% t to answer t e c ar%es a%ainst t em, wit t e assistance of counsel, if desiredA (?) t ey s all #e informed of t e e-idence a%ainst t emA (4) t ey s all a-e t e ri% t to adduce e-idence in t eir own #e alfA and (4) t e e-idence must #e duly considered #y t e in-esti%atin% committee or official desi%nated #y t e sc ool aut orities to ear and decide t e case&

'.E /E'+'+3B @); G()B'E< )B< '.E (E;/3B<EB'; )(E <+(E!'E< '3 )$$3@ '.E /E'+'+3BE(; '3 (E9EB(3$$ @+'.3:' /(EJ:<+!E '3 )BP <+;!+/$+B)(P /(3!EE<+BG;& G.n3ales v. <LR$ F)!'; 9 $orlene Gon=ales was a Grade 6 teac er in )teneo de <a-ao :ni-ersity from 1214 to 122?, w en s e was terminated& +n1221, t e Grade ;c ool .eadmaster sent er a letter informin% er of 0 complaints from parents of er students for alle%ed use of corporal punis ment& ; e demanded to >now w o t e parents were #ecause )teneo wouldnGt tell er& @ en s e found out t at )teneo was solicitin% complaints from parents of er students, s e demanded an in-esti%ation&9 )teneo sent er a notice of in-esti%ation, sc edule, !ommittee composition, affida-its of t e parents, and t e rulesof procedure& ; e refused to ta>e part in t e in-esti%ationunless t e rules of procedure were re-ised& ' e committee, under ad-ice of counsel, did not re-ise t e rules, since it ad #een used for a different teac er in t e past& ' e in-esti%ation went on, wit out er participation& +n 122?, s e was as>ed to tender er resi%nation, ot erwise s e would #e considered resi%ned& 9 $orlene filed for ille%al dismissal wit t e $)& ' e $) found t at s e was indeed ille%ally dismissed #ecause alt ou% s e was afforded due process, )teneo failed to esta#lis su#stantial e-idence as to $orleneGs %uilt& +t was esta#lis ed t at s e is a -ery %ood teac er, e6uipped wit t e appropriate educational 6ualifications, trainin%s, seminars and wor> e7periences& ;uc fact was affirmed #y er present and former students, t eir parents, collea%ues and t e former eadmaster of t e %rade sc ool& )s a matter of fact, 6 out of t e nine 2 students and t eir parentsC%uardians retracted and wit drew t eir statements&9 B$(! re-ersed $)Gs decision, sayin% t e dismissal was -alid and le%al& +;;:E @3B dismissal was -alid and le%al .E$< B39 +n -iew of t e fore%oin%, t e conclusion of t e B$(! isunwarranted& Bo due process L ' e committee refused to re-ise t e rules of procedure& )s a result, $orlene wasnGt afforded a c ance defend erself and to e7amine C cross9e7amine t e accusers& Failure to pro-e #y su#stantial e-idence L ' e e-idence of )teneo didnGt measure up to t e standard laid down in )n% 'i#ay !+(: Esu#stantial e-idence is more t an mere scintilla& +t means suc rele-ant e-idence as a reasona#le mind mi% t accept as ade6uate to support a conclusion&E $orleneGs e-idence

L ; e was a#le to pro-e t at s eGs a competent and dedicated teac er of )teneo for 11 years&9 Employment is not merely a contractual relations ipA it asassumed t e nature of property ri% t& +t may spell t edifference w et er or not a family will a-e food on t eir ta#le, roof o-er t eir eads and education for t eir c ildren& +t is for t is reason t at t e ;tate as ta>en up measures to protect employees from unjustified dismissals& +t is also #ecause of t is t at t e ri% t to security of tenure is not only a statutory ri% t #ut, more so, a constitutional ri% t& <isposition B$(! decision re-ersed and set aside& $) decision reinstated, affirmed and adopted& A-ene. vs. $ap/l.n +a,-s> $eonardo .& *illa, a first year law student of /etitioner :ni-ersity, died of serious p ysical injuries at ! inese General .ospital after t e initiation rites of )6uila $e%is& Bien-enido "ar6ue= was also ospitali=ed at t e !apitol "edical !enter for acute renal failure occasioned #y t e serious p ysical injuries inflicted upon im on t e same occasion& /etitioner <ean !ynt ia del !astillo created a Joint )dministration9Faculty9;tudent +n-esti%atin% !ommittee w ic was tas>ed to in-esti%ate and su#mit a report wit in 10 ours on t e circumstances surroundin% t e deat of $ennie *illa& ;aid notice also re6uired respondent students to su#mit t eir written statements wit in twenty9four (04) ours from receipt& )lt ou% respondent students recei-ed a copy of t e written notice, t ey failed to file a reply& +n t e meantime, t ey were placed on pre-enti-e suspension& ' e Joint )dministration9Faculty9;tudent +n-esti%atin% !ommittee, after recei-in% t e written statements and earin% t e testimonies of se-eral witness, found a prima facie case a%ainst respondent students for -iolation of (ule ? of t e $aw ;c ool !atalo%ue entitled E<iscipline&E (espondent students were t en re6uired to file t eir written answers to t e formal c ar%e& /etitioner <ean created a <isciplinary Board to ear t e c ar%es a%ainst respondent students& ' e Board found respondent students %uilty of -iolatin% (ule Bo& ? of t e )teneo $aw ;c ool (ules on <iscipline w ic pro i#its participation in a=in% acti-ities& .owe-er, in -iew of t e lac> of unanimity amon% t e mem#ers of t e Board on t e penalty of dismissal, t e Board left t e imposition of t e penalty to t e :ni-ersity )dministration& )ccordin%ly, Fr& Bernas imposed t e penalty of dismissal on all respondent students& (espondent students filed wit ('! "a>ati a '(3 since t ey are currently enrolled& ' is was %ranted& ) '(3 was also issued enjoinin% petitioners from dismissin% t e respondents& ) day after t e e7piration of t e temporary restrainin% order, <ean del !astillo created a ;pecial Board to in-esti%ate t e c ar%es of a=in% a%ainst respondent students )#as and "endo=a& ' is was re6uested to #e stric>en out #y t e respondents and ar%ued t at t e creation of t e ;pecial Board was totally unrelated to t e ori%inal petition w ic alle%ed lac> of due process& ' is was %ranted and reinstatement of t e students was ordered& %ss/e> @as t ere denial of due process a%ainst t e respondent students& &el0> ' ere was no denial of due process, more particularly procedural due process& <ean of t e )teneo $aw ;c ool, notified and re6uired respondent students to su#mit t eir written statement on t e incident& +nstead of filin% a reply, respondent students re6uested t rou%

t eir counsel, copies of t e c ar%es& ' e nature and cause of t e accusation were ade6uately spelled out in petitioners8 notices& /resent is t e twin elements of notice and earin%& (espondent students ar%ue t at petitioners are not in a position to file t e instant petition under (ule 64 considerin% t at t ey failed to file a motion for reconsideration first #efore t e trial court, t ere#y #y passin% t e latter and t e !ourt of )ppeals& +t is accepted le%al doctrine t at an e7ception to t e doctrine of e7 austion of remedies is w en t e case in-ol-es a 6uestion of law, as in t is case, w ere t e issue is w et er or not respondent students a-e #een afforded procedural due process prior to t eir dismissal from /etitioner :ni-ersity& "inimum standards to #e satisfied in t e imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academic institutions, suc as petitioner uni-ersity erein, t us: (1) t e students must #e informed in writin% of t e nature and cause of any accusation a%ainst t emA (0) t at t ey s all a-e t e ri% t to answer t e c ar%es a%ainst t em wit t e assistance of counsel, if desired: (?) t ey s all #e informed of t e e-idence a%ainst t em (4) t ey s all a-e t e ri% t to adduce e-idence in t eir own #e alfA and (4) t e e-idence must #e duly considered #y t e in-esti%atin% committee or official desi%nated #y t e sc ool aut orities to ear and decide t e case&