7/23/2019 Hong Kong v Judge Olalia

1/1

Hong Kong v. OlaliaG.R. No. 153675Facts

The Philippines and Hong Kong signed an g!ee"ent #o! the $%!!ende! o# cc%sed

and&onvicted Pe!sons.'P!ivate !espondent (%)o* +as cha!ged ,e#o!e the Hong

Kong &o%!t. -epa!t"ent o# %stice/-O0 !eceived #!o" the Hong Kong -epa!t"ent o#

%stice a !e%est #o! the p!ovisional a!!est o# p!ivate !espondent (%)o*. The -O

then #o!+a!ded the !e%est to the National 2%!ea% o# nvestigation /N20+hich4 in

t%!n4 led +ith the RT& o# (anila4 2!anch 1 an application #o! the p!ovisional a!!est

o# p!ivate !espondent. The N2 agents a!!ested and detained hi". (%)o* led a

petition #o! ,ail +hich +as denied , %dge 2e!na!do4 !. holding that the!e is no

Philippine la+ g!anting ,ail in e8t!adition cases and that p!ivate !espondent is a

high 9ight !is:.' #te! %dge 2e!na!do4 !. inhi,ited hi"sel# #!o" #%!the! hea!ing the

case4 it +as then !a;ed o< to 2!anch = p!esided , !espondent >%dge. P!ivate

!espondent led a "otion #o! !econside!ation o# the O!de! deninghis application #o!

,ail and this +as g!anted , !espondent >%dge.

$$?@A Bhethe! o! not the t!ial co%!t co""itted g!ave a,%se o# disc!etion

a"o%nting to lac: o! e8cess o# >%!isdiction in allo+ing p!ivate !espondent to ,ailC

H@D-A No4 the t!ial co%!t did not co""it g!ave a,%se o# disc!etion a"o%nting to

lac: o! e8cess o# >%!isdiction in allo+ing p!ivate !espondent to ,ail. cco!dingl4

altho%gh the ti"eEhono!ed p!inciple o# pacta s%nt se!vanda de"ands that the

Philippines hono! its o,ligations %nde! the @8t!adition T!eat it ente!ed into +ith the

Hong Kong $pecial d"inist!ative Region it does not necessa!il "ean that in

:eeping +ith its t!eat o,ligations4 the Philippines sho%ld di"inish a potential

e8t!aditees !ights to li#e4 li,e!t4 and d%e p!ocess g%a!anteed ,the &onstit%tion.(o!e so4 +he!e these !ights a!e g%a!anteed4 not onl , o%! &onstit%tion4 ,%t also

, inte!national conventions4 pa!tic%la!l the ?nive!sal -ecla!ation o# H%"an

Rights4 to +hich the Philippines is a pa!t. Be sho%ld not4 the!e#o!e4 dep!ive an

e8t!aditee o# his !ight to appl #o! ,ail4 p!ovided that a ce!tain standa!d #o! the

g!ant is satis#acto!il "et.

n his $epa!ate Opinion in P%!ganan4 thenssociate %stice4 no+ &hie# %stice

Renato $. P%no4 p!oposed that a ne+ standa!d +hich he te!"edclea! and

convincing evidence' sho%ld ,e %sed in g!anting ,ail in e8t!adition cases. cco!ding

to hi"4this standa!d sho%ld ,e lo+e! than p!oo# ,eond !easona,le do%,t ,%t highe!

than p!eponde!ance o# evidence. The potential e8t!aditee "%st p!ove , clea! andconvincing evidence' that he is not a 9ight!is: and +ill a,ide +ith all the o!de!s and

p!ocesses o# the e8t!adition co%!t.n this case4 the!e is no sho+ing that p!ivate

!espondent p!esented evidence to sho+ that he is nota 9ight !is:. &onse%entl4

this case sho%ld ,e !e"anded to the t!ial co%!t to dete!"ine +hethe!

p!ivate!espondent "a ,e g!anted ,ail on the ,asis o# clea! and convincing

evidence.'