You are on page 1of 8

People vs Wong Cheng the country within territory they were committed.

As to whether the United States has ever


Facts: consented by treaty or otherwise to renouncing
such jurisdiction or a part thereof, we find nothing
The appellant, in representation of the Attorney to this effect so far as England is concerned, to
General, filed an appeal that urges the revocation which nation the ship where the crime in question
of a demurrer sustained by the Court of First was committed belongs.
Instance of Manila presented by the defendant. mere possession of opium aboard a foreign
The defendant, accused of having illegally smoked vessel in transit was held by this court not triable
opium aboard the merchant vessel Changsa of by or courts, because it being the primary object of
English nationality while the said vessel was our Opium Law to protect the inhabitants of the
anchored in Manila Bay, two and a half miles from Philippines against the disastrous effects entailed
the shores of the city. In the said demurrer, the by the use of this drug, its mere possession in such
defendant contended the lack of jurisdiction of the a ship, without being used in our territory, does not
lower court of the said crime, which resulted to the being about in the said territory those effects that
dismissal of the case. our statute contemplates avoiding. Hence such a
mere possession is not considered a disturbance
Issue: of the public order.
to smoke opium within our territorial limits, even
Whether or not the Philippine courts have though aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly
jurisdiction over the crime committed aboard a breach of the public order here established,
merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdictional because it causes such drug to produce its
waters. pernicious effects within our territory. It seriously
contravenes the purpose that our Legislature has
Held: in mind in enacting the aforesaid repressive
statute.
Yes. The crime in the case at bar was committed in
our internal waters thus the Philippine courts have The point at issue is whether the courts of the Philippines have
a right of jurisdiction over the said offense. The jurisdiction over crime, like the one herein involved, committed
aboard merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdiction waters.
Court said that having the opium smoked within our
territorial waters even though aboard a foreign There are two fundamental rules on this particular matter in
merchant ship is a breach of the public order connection with International Law; to wit, the French rule,
because it causes such drugs to produce according to which crimes committed aboard a foreign
merchant vessels should not be prosecuted in the courts of
pernicious effects within our territory. Therefore, the the country within whose territorial jurisdiction they were
demurrer is revoked and the Court ordered further committed, unless their commission affects the peace and
proceedings. security of the territory; and the English rule, based on the
territorial principle and followed in the United States, according
HELD: The order appealed from is revoked and the to which, crimes perpetrated under such circumstances are in
cause ordered remanded to the court of origin for general triable in the courts of the country within territory they
were committed. Of this two rules, it is the last one that obtains
further proceedings in accordance with law, without in this jurisdiction, because at present the theories and
special findings as to costs. jurisprudence prevailing in the United States on this matter are
YES. authority in the Philippines which is now a territory of the
2 fundamental rules on this particular matter United States.
in connection with International Law In the cases of The Schooner Exchange vs. M'Faddon and
French rule-according to Others (7 Cranch [U. S.], 116), Chief Justice Marshall said:
which crimes committed aboard a foreign . . . When merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it
merchant vessels should not be prosecuted would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society,
in the courts of the country within whose and would subject the laws to continual infraction, and the
government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants
territorial jurisdiction they were committed did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not
UNLESS: their commission affects the peace and amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. . . .
security of the territory In United States vs. Bull (15 Phil., 7), this court held:
English rule . . . No court of the Philippine Islands had jurisdiction over an
offense or crime committed on the high seas or within the
-based on the territorial principle and followed in territorial waters of any other country, but when she came
the United States within three miles of a line drawn from the headlands, which
-according to which crimes perpetrated under such embrace the entrance to Manila Bay, she was within territorial
circumstances are in general triable in the courts of waters, and a new set of principles became applicable.
(Wheaton, International Law [Dana ed.], p. 255, note 105;
Bonfils, Le Droit Int., secs. 490 et seq.; Latour, La Mer Ter., ch. Ruling
1.) The ship and her crew were then subject to the jurisdiction The Supreme Court decided that Mejoff be
of the territorial sovereign subject to such limitations as have
been conceded by that sovereignty through the proper political released from custody but be placed under
agency. . . . reasonable surveillance of the immigration
authorities to insure that he keep peace and be
We have seen that the mere possession of opium aboard a available when the Government is ready to deport
foreign vessel in transit was held by this court not triable by or
courts, because it being the primary object of our Opium Law
him. In the doctrine of incorporation, the Philippines
to protect the inhabitants of the Philippines against the in its constitution adops the generally accepted
disastrous effects entailed by the use of this drug, its mere principles of international law as part of the law of
possession in such a ship, without being used in our territory, Nations. Also, the Philippines has joined the United
does not being about in the said territory those effects that our Nations in its Resolution entitled Universal
statute contemplates avoiding. Hence such a mere possession
is not considered a disturbance of the public order. Declaration of Human Rights in proclaiming that
But to smoke opium within our territorial limits, even though life and liberty and all other fundamental rights
aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly a breach of the shall be applied to all human beings. The
public order here established, because it causes such drug to contention that he remains a threat of to the
produce its pernicious effects within our territory. It seriously
contravenes the purpose that our Legislature has in mind in
security of the country is unfounded as Japan and
enacting the aforesaid repressive statute. Moreover, as the the US or the Phils are no longer at war.
Attorney-General aptly observes:
. . . The idea of a person smoking opium securely on board a FACTS:
foreign vessel at anchor in the port of Manila in open defiance Petitioner: Boris Mejoff, a Russian national
of the local authorities, who are impotent to lay hands on him, brought to the Philippines as a secret
is simply subversive of public order. It requires no unusual
stretch of the imagination to conceive that a foreign ship may operative by the Japanese during the
come into the port of Manila and allow or solicit Chinese Japanese Occupation
residents to smoke opium on board. Yet another petition for habeas corpus (i.e.
The order appealed from is revoked and the cause ordered this was not the first case filed by Mejoff)
remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings in
accordance with law, without special findings as to costs. So
First petition denied by SC on July 30, 1949
ordered. [Now that were done with that, lets go
back to the story]
Mejoff vs Director of Prisons Upon the liberation of the Philippines,
Mejoff was arrested as a spy by the US
Facts Army Counter-Intelligence Corps
The Peoples Court ordered Mejoffs
Boris Mejoff, a Russian, was captured as a release, but the Deportation Board then
Japanese spy by the US Army Counter Intelligence found out that he had no travel documents
Corps on March 18, 1948. He was turned over to and referred the matter to the immigration
the Phil Commonwealth Government for authorities
appropriate disposition. His case was decided on The Immigration Board declared Mejoff an
by the Board of Commissioners of Immigration who illegal alien, having illegally entered the
declared him as an illegal alien. The Board ordered Philippines in 1944, without inspection or
his immediate deportation. In the meantime, we admission by immigration officials, and
was placed in prison awaiting the ship that will take ordered that he be deported to Russia
him back home to Russia. Two Russian boats have come the first available transport
been requested to bring him back to Russia but the Mejoff was then under custody, having
masters refused as they had no authority to do so. been arrested on March 18, 1948
Two years passed and Mejoff is still under Repeated failures to ship Mejoff to Russia
detention awaiting the ship that will take him home. Mejoff was moved to Bilibid where he has
This case is a petition for habeas corpus. However, been confined for give or take two years;
the respondent held that the Mejoff should stay in no ship or country would take him, says
temporary detention as it is a necessary step in the the decision
process of exclusion or expulsion of undesirable ISSUE:
aliens. It further states that is has the right to do so WON Mejoff should be released from prison
for a reasonable length of time. pending his deportation
RULING:
Issue The protection against deprivation of liberty
Whether or not Mejoff should be released from without due process of law, and except for
prison awaiting his deportation. crimes committed against the laws of the
land, is not limited to Philippine citizens but The Department of Justice, through a designated
extends to all residents, except enemy panel proceeded with the technical evaluation and
aliens, regardless of nationality assessment of the extradition treaty which they
Sec. 3, Art. II of the 1935 Constitution adopts found having matters needed to be addressed.
the generally accepted principles of Respondent, then requested for copies of all the
international law as part of the law of the documents included in the extradition request and
Nation, which means that the for him to be given ample time to assess it.
incorporation doctrine holds sway here
The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights The Secretary of Justice denied request on the ff.
proclaims the right to life and liberty and grounds:
all other fundamental rights as applied
to all human beings, stating that all 1. He found it premature to secure him copies prior
human beings are born free and equal in to the completion of the evaluation. At that point in
degree and rights (Art. 1); that everyone is time, the DOJ is in the process of evaluating
entitled to all the rights and freedom set whether the procedures and requirements under
forth in this Declaration, without distinction the relevant law (PD 1069Philippine Extradition
of any kind, such as race, color, sex, Law) and treaty (RP-US Extradition Treaty) have
language, religion, political or other opinion, been complied with by the Requesting
nationality or social origin, property, birth, or Government. Evaluation by the DOJ of the
other status (Art. 2); that every one has documents is not a preliminary investigation like in
the right to an effective remedy by the criminal cases making the constitutionally
competent national tribunals for acts guaranteed rights of the accused in criminal
violating the fundamental rights granted him prosecution inapplicable.
by the Constitution or by law (Art. 8); that 2. The U.S. requested for the prevention of
no one shall be subjected to arbitrary unauthorized disclosure of the information in the
arrest, detention or exile (Art. 9 ), etc. documents.
The writ of habeas corpus will issue commanding
the respondents to release the petitioner from 3. Finally, the country is bound to the Vienna
custody upon these terms: that the petitioner shall convention on the law of treaties such that every
be placed under reasonable surveillance c/o the treaty in force is binding upon the parties.
immigration authorities or their agents in such form
and manner as may be deemed adequate to insure The respondent filed for petition of mandamus,
that he keep peace and be available when the certiorari, and prohibition. The RTC of NCR ruled in
Government is ready to deport him. favor of the respondent. Secretary of Justice was
made to issue a copy of the requested papers, as
Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, 322 SCRA 160 well as conducting further proceedings.
(2000)

FACTS: On June 18, 1999 the Department of


Justice received from the Department of Foreign ISSUES:
Affairs a request for the extradition of private
respondent Mark Jimenez to the U.S. The 1. Whether or not private is respondent entitled to
the two basic due process rights of notice and
Grand Jury Indictment, the warrant for his arrest, hearing
and other supporting documents for said
extradition were attached along with the request.
Charges include:
RULING: Yes. Section 2(a) of PD 1086 defines
1. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the extradition as the removal of an accused from the
US Philippines with the object of placing him at the
disposal of foreign authorities to enable
2. Attempt to evade or defeat tax
the requesting state or government to hold him in
3. Fraud by wire, radio, or television connection with any criminal investigation directed
against him in connection with any criminal
4. False statement or entries investigation directed against him or the execution
of a penalty imposed on him under the penal or
5. Election contribution in name of another
criminal law of the requesting state or government. Hong Kong Court. Warrants of arrest were issued
Although the inquisitorial power exercised by the and by virtue of a final decree the validity of the
Department of Justice as an administrative agency Order of Arrest was upheld. The petitioner Hong
due to the failure of the DFA to comply lacks any Kong Administrative Region filed a petition for the
judicial discretion, it primarily sets the wheels for extradition of the private respondent. In the same
the extradition process which may ultimately result case, a petition for bail was filed by the private
in the deprivation of the liberty of the prospective respondent.
extradite.
The petition for bail was denied by reason that
This deprivation can be effected at two stages: there was no Philippine law granting the same in
extradition cases and that the respondent was a
The provisional arrest of the prospective extradite high flight risk. Private respondent filed a motion
pending the submission of the request and the for reconsideration and was granted by the
temporary arrest of the prospective extradite during respondent judge subject to the following
the pendency of the extradition petition in court. conditions:
Clearly, there is an impending threat to a
prospective extraditees liberty as early as during 1. Bail is set at Php750,000.00 in cash with the
the evaluation stage. condition that accused hereby undertakes that he
will appear and answer the issues raised in these
Because of such consequences, the evaluation proceedings and will at all times hold himself
process is akin to an administrative agency amenable to orders and processes of this Court,
conducting an investigative proceeding, the will further appear for judgment. If accused fails in
consequences of which are essentially criminal this undertaking, the cash bond will be forfeited in
since such technical assessment sets off or favor of the government;
commences the procedure for and ultimately the
deprivation of liberty of a prospective extradite. In 2. Accused must surrender his valid passport to
essence, therefore, the evaluation process this Court;
partakes of the nature of a criminal investigation.
3. The Department of Justice is given immediate
There are certain constitutional rights that are notice and discretion of filing its own motion for
ordinarily available only in criminal prosecution. But hold departure order before this Court even in
the Court has ruled in other cases that where the extradition proceeding; and
investigation of an administrative proceeding may
result in forfeiture of life, liberty, or property, the 4. Accused is required to report to the government
administrative proceedings are deemed criminal or prosecutors handling this case or if they so desire
penal, and such forfeiture partakes the nature of a to the nearest office, at any time and day of the
penalty. week; and if they further desire, manifest before
this Court to require that all the assets of accused,
In the case at bar, similar to a preliminary real and personal, be filed with this Court soonest,
investigation, the evaluation stage of the extradition with the condition that if the accused flees from his
proceedings which may result in the filing of an undertaking, said assets be forfeited in favor of the
information against the respondent, can possibly government and that the corresponding
lead to his arrest, and to the deprivation of his lien/annotation be noted therein accordingly.
liberty. Petitioner filed a motion to vacate the said order
but was denied by the respondent judge. Hence,
Thus, the extraditee must be accorded due
this instant petition.
process rights of notice

and hearing according to Art. 3 sec 14(1) and (2), Issue


as well as Art. 3 sec 7the right of the people to
information on matters of public concern and the WON a potential extraditee is entitled to post bail
corollary right to access to official records and
documents. Ruling

Government of Hongkong v. Olalia A potential extraditee is entitled to bail.

Private respondent Muoz was charged before Ratio Decidendi


Petitioner alleged that the trial court committed He eventually married here and started a family as
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or well as a business in Palawan. Vice Consul
excess of jurisdiction in admitting private Hippelein informed the Philippine Ambassador to
respondent to bail; that there is nothing in the Germany that the respondent had police records
Constitution or statutory law providing that a and financial liabilities in Germany.
potential extraditee has a right to bail, the right
being limited solely to criminal proceedings. The DFA receive from the German Embassy in
Manila that the respondent is wanted in Germany,
On the other hand, private respondent maintained and requested to turn over his German passport to
that the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of the Embassy.
Rights extends to a prospective extraditee; and
that extradition is a harsh process resulting in a Thereafter BOC issued a Summary Deportation
prolonged deprivation of ones liberty. Order dated September 27, 1997. It was stated
In this case, the Court reviewed what was held in that the deportation shall be held in abeyance
Government of United States of America v. Hon. pending respondents case and he shall remain in
Guillermo G. Purganan, Presiding Judge, RTC of the custody of the bureau.
Manila, Branch 42, and Mark B. Jimenez, a.k.a. In issuing this the BOC relied on the statements of
Mario Batacan Crespo GR No. 153675 April 2007, the German Vice Consul on the speculation that it
that the constitutional provision on bail does not is improbable that the respondent will be issued a
apply to extradition proceedings, the same being new passport, the warrant of arrest for insurance
available only in criminal proceedings. The Court fraud and alleged illegal activities in Palawan.
took cognizance of the following trends in
international law: Respondent nevertheless stayed in the Philippines
(1) the growing importance of the individual person after airing his side to then BID Commissioner
in public international; Verceles, the latter giving him time to apply for a
(2) the higher value now being given to human clearance and a new passport.
rights;
(3) the corresponding duty of countries to observe Scheer eventually filed an Urgent Motion for
these universal human rights in fulfilling their treaty Reconsideration stating that his right to due
obligations; and process was violated, for there was no notice or
(4) the duty of this Court to balance the rights of chance to be heard before the issuance of the
the individual under our fundamental law, on one deportation order.
hand, and the law on extradition, on the other.
In light of the recent developments in international Eventually the criminal case for physical injuries
law, where emphasis is given to the worth of the against the respondent was dismissed, and he was
individual and the sanctity of human rights, the issued a passport.
Court departed from the ruling in Purganan, and
He informed Commissioner Verceles about this
held that an extraditee may be allowed to post bail.
matter and reiterated the cancellation of the order,
Domingo v. Scheer but the Commissioner did not respond.

FACTS: Thereafter Commissioner Domingo assumed office


and on June 6, 2002, she ordered the
This is a petition for review under Rule 45, of the apprehension of the respondent who was held in
decision of the Court of Appeals granting the custody awaiting deportation.
respondents petition for certiorari and prohibition
annulling the order of arrest issued by petitioner, Shocked, respondent sought remedy with the CA,
and permanently enjoining her from deporting the during the hearing of which the Solicitor General
respondent from the Philippines. The appellate suggested that the respondent leave the country
court reversed the Summary Deportation Order of first then just re-apply.
the Board of Commissioners.
A decision was reached in favor of Scheer,
Respondent Scheer is a native of Germany, who permanently enjoining Domingo from continuing
was eventually granted a permanent resident the deportation, thus this petition.
status in the Philippines.
ISSUE(S): the Constitution. The United Nations Declaration
on Human Rights grants every person rights, and
1. Whether or not the BOC was an that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest,
indispensable party to the case. detention or exile.
2. Whether or not respondents arrest and BOC ordered respondents deportation without
detention was premature, unwarranted and even conducting summary deportation
arbitrary. proceedings, but merely relied on the speculation
of the German Embassy and the Vice Consul that it
HELD: is improbable that the respondent will be issued a
1. Yes but not enough to invalidate the new passport, warranting the deportation.
petition. The respondent was not afforded any hearing at
Petitioner argues that the respondent must have all, and not given the opportunity to put up a
impleaded BOC as the respondent, and not defense for himself, thus violating his right to due
Commissioner Domingo alone. The Summary process.
Deportation Order was issued by the BOC as a A deportation proceeding may not be a criminal
whole and Domingo is just but one Commissioner action, but since it affects the liberty of a person,
so the petitioner argues that the action may be the right to due process of a respondent must be
dismissed. respected.
The court ruled that it agrees with the petitioner Even six years after the motion for reconsideration
that the BOC was an indispensable party to the of the respondent which was still not attended to,
respondents petition in the CA. out of nowhere and arbitrarily the agents were
However, the non-joinder of indispensable parties ordered to arrest him.
is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. Even after being issued a new passport and even
Parties may be added as ordered by the court and securing clearances from the PNP and NPA, the
if the petitioner refuses to implead an BOC still proceeded with the deportation.
indispensable party, then the petition may be
dismissed. In the case at bar, CA did not require to BOC is required to resolve the motion of the
implead respondent first, giving him the chance to be heard
and present his evidence.
BOC as the respondent so it does not warrant the
dismissal of respondents petition. The petitioner put up the defense that they cannot
review cases decided before the change of
The court may choose to amend the processes members, but since it is the same government
and the pleadings by substituting as party-plaintiff entity, they have the authority to review past cases.
the real party-interest, but the court also has the In addition, the court finds the contention of the
power to avoid delay in the disposition of cases OSG for the respondent to leave the country then
and it may just be unnecessary to still choose to just re-apply again ridiculous when there is no legal
implead BOC. impediment for the respondent to continue his stay
The OSG has already represented the petitioner in in the country.
instant proceedings thus the BOC cannot claim Government of USA vs Purganan
that it was not afforded the opportunity to be in
court. Proceedings may be to facilitate justice but Facts:
they do not constitute the thing itself and they may This Petition is really a sequel to GR No. 139465
be relaxed in certain cases. entitled Secretary of Justice v. Ralph C. Lantion
2. Yes. where the court held that Jimenez was bereft of the
right to notice and hearing during the evaluation
The Court ruled that BOC committed grave abuse stage of the extradition process.
of discretion in causing the arrest and detention of
the respondent. Finding no more legal obstacle, the Government of
the United States of America, represented by the
Aliens may be deported from the Philippines only Philippine DOJ, filed with the RTC on 18 May
on grounds and in the proper manner provided by 2001, the appropriate Petition for Extradition which
was docketed as Extradition Case 01192061. The
Petition alleged, inter alia, that Jimenez was the At most, in cases of clear insufficiency of evidence
subject of an arrest warrant issued by the United on record, judges merely further
States District Court for the Southern District of examine complainants and their witnesses.
Florida on 15 April 1999.
In the present case, validating the act of
Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Jimenez respondent judge and instituting the practice of
filed before it an Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte hearing the accused and his witnesses at this early
Motion, which prayed that Jimenezs application stage would be discordant with the rationale for the
for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. In its 23 entire system.
May 2001 Order, the RTC granted the Motion of
Jimenez and set the case for hearing on 5 June If the accused were allowed to be heard and
2001. necessarily to present evidence during the prima
facie determination for the issuance of a warrant of
In that hearing, Jimenez manifested its arrest, what would stop him from presenting his
reservations on the procedure adopted by the trial entire plethora of defenses at this stage if he so
court allowing the accused in an extradition case to desires in his effort to negate a prima facie
be heard prior to the issuance of a warrant of finding?
arrest.
Such a procedure could convert the determination
After the hearing, the court a quo required the of a prima facie case into a full-blown trial of the
parties to submit their respective memoranda. In entire proceedings and possibly make trial of the
his Memorandum, Jimenez sought an alternative main case superfluous.
prayer:
This scenario is also anathema to the summary
that in case a warrant should issue, he be allowed nature of extraditions.
to post bail in the amount of P100,000.
***Upon receipt of a petition for extradition and its
The alternative prayer of Jimenez was also set for supporting documents, the judge must study them
hearing on 15 June 2001. Thereafter, the court and make, as soon as possible, a prima facie
below issued its 3 July 2001 Order, directing the finding whether
issuance of warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for
his temporary liberty at P1 million in cash. (a) they are sufficient in form and substance,

After he had surrendered his passport and posted (b) they show compliance with the Extradition
the required cash bond, Jimenez was granted Treaty and Law, and
provisional liberty via the challenged Order dated 4
July 2001. Hence, this petition. (c) the person sought is extraditable. At his
discretion, the judge may require the submission of
Issues: 1.Whether Jimenez is entitled to notice further documentation or may personally examine
and hearing before a warrant for his arrest can be the affiants and witnesses of the petitioner.
issued
Whether he is entitled to bail and to If, in spite of this study and examination, no prima
provisional liberty while the extradition facie finding is possible, the petition may be
proceedings are pending dismissed at the discretion of the judge.
Held:
No.
To determine probable cause for the issuance of On the other hand, if the presence of a prima facie
arrest warrants, the Constitution itself requires only case is determined, then the magistrate must
the examination under oath or affirmation immediately issue a warrant for the arrest of the
of complainants and the witnesses they may extraditee, who is at the same time summoned to
produce. answer the petition and to appear at scheduled
summary hearings.
There is no requirement to notify and hear
the accused before the issuance of warrants of Prior to the issuance of the warrant, the judge must
arrest. not inform or notify the potential extraditee of the
pendency of the petition, lest the latter be given the
opportunity to escape and frustrate the
proceedings.

In our opinion, the foregoing procedure will best


serve the ends of justice in extradition cases.***
No.
Extradition cases are different from ordinary
criminal proceedings.

The constitutional right to bail flows from the


presumption of innocence in favor of every
accused who should not be subjected to the loss of
freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to
acquittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond
reasonable doubt.

It follows that the constitutional provision on bail


will not apply to a case like extradition, where the
presumption of innocence is not at issue.

Respondent Jimenez cites the foreign


case Parettiin 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.

You might also like