Está en la página 1de 3

18. Govt of Hong Kong vs.


G.R. No. 153675

April 19, 2007


On January 30, 1995, the Republic of the Philippines and the then British Crown Colony of Hong Kong signed an
"Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons." It took effect on June 20, 1997.

Muoz was charged before the Hong Kong Court with three (3) counts of the offense of "accepting an advantage as
agent," in violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201 of Hong Kong. He also
faces seven (7) counts of the offense of conspiracy to defraud, penalized by the common law of Hong Kong.

On September 13, 1999, the DOJ received from the Hong Kong Department of Justice a request for the provisional
arrest of Munoz. The RTC, Branch 19, Manila issued an Order of Arrest against Munoz. That same day, the NBI
agents arrested and detained him.

Munoz filed a petition for bail which was opposed by Govt of Hong Kong. After hearing, Judge Bernardo, Jr. issued
an Order denying the petition for bail, holding that there is no Philippine law granting bail in extradition cases and
that Munoz is a high "flight risk." Judge Bernardo, Jr. inhibited himself from further hearing the case, it was then
raffled off to Branch 8 presided by respondent judge. Munoz filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order
denying his application for bail and this was granted by respondent judge.

Govt of Hong Kong filed an urgent motion to vacate the above Order, but it was denied by respondent judge.
Hence, the instant petition.

Whether or not respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
as there is no provision in the Constitution granting bail to a potential extraditee.


No. Bearing in mind the purpose of extradition proceedings, the premise behind the issuance of the arrest
warrant and the "temporary detention" is the possibility of flight of the potential extraditee. This is based on the
assumption that such extraditee is a fugitive from justice. Given the foregoing, the prospective extraditee thus
bears the onus probandi of showing that he or she is not a flight risk and should be granted bail.

The Philippines, along with the other members of the family of nations, committed to uphold the
fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person. Clearly, the right of a
prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the various treaty
obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and protection of human rights. Under these
treaties, the presumption lies in favor of human liberty. Thus, the Philippines should see to it that the right to
liberty of every individual is not impaired.

Extradition is not a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the potential extraditee. Nor is it a full-blown
civil action, but one that is merely administrative in character. Its object is to prevent the escape of a person
accused or convicted of a crime and to secure his return to the state from which he fled, for the purpose of trial or
punishment. It does not necessarily mean that in keeping with its treaty obligations, the Philippines should
diminish a potential extraditees rights to life, liberty, and due process. More so, where these rights are
guaranteed, not only by our Constitution, but also by international conventions, to which the Philippines is a party.
We should not, therefore, deprive an extraditee of his right to apply for bail, provided that a certain standard for
the grant is satisfactorily met.

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. This case is REMANDED to the trial court to determine whether Munoz is
entitled to bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence." If not, the trial court should order the cancellation
of his bail bond and his immediate detention; and thereafter, conduct the extradition proceedings with dispatch.


G.R. No. 183871
18 February 2010


On 03 April 2007, Lourdes Rubrico, chair of Ugnayan ng Maralita para sa Gawa Adhikan, was abducted by armed
men belonging to the 301st Air Intelligence and Security Squadron (AISS) based in Lipa City while attending a
Lenten pabasa in Dasmarinas, Cavite. She was brought to and detained at the air base without charges. She was
released a week after relentless interrogation, but only after she signed a statement that she would be a military

Despite her release, she was tailed on at least 2 occasions. Hence, Lourdes filed a complaint with the Office of the
Ombudsman a criminal complaint for kidnapping and arbitrary detention and grave misconduct against Cuaresma,
Alfaro, Santana, and Jonathan, but nothing has happened. She likewise reported the threats and harassment
incidents to the Dasmarinas municipal and Cavite provincial police stations , but nothing eventful resulted from
their investigation.

Meanwhile, the human rights group Karapatan conducted an investigation which indicated that men belonging to
the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) led the abduction of Lourdes. Based on such information, Rubrico filed a
petition for the writ of amparo with the Supreme Court on 25 October 2007, praying that respondents be ordered
to desist from performing any threatening act against the security of petitioners.

The Supreme Court issued the desired writ and then referred the petition to the Court of Appeals (CA) for summary
hearing and appropriate action. At the hearing conducted on 20 November 2007, the CA granted petitioners
motion that the petition and writ be served on Darwin Sy/Reyes, Santana, Alfaro, Cuaresma, and Jonathan. By a
separate resolution, the CA dropped the President as respondent in the case.

On 31 July 2008, after due proceedings, the CA rendered its partial judgment, dismissing the petition with respect
to Esperon, Razon, Roquero, Gomez, and Ombudsman. Hence, the petitioners filed a Peti tion for Review on
Certiorari with the Supreme Court.


Whether or not the doctrine of command responsibility is applicable in an amparo petition.


NO. There is no Philippine law that provides for criminal liability under the Doctrine of Command Responsibility.
While there are several pending bills on command responsibility, there is still no Philippine law that provides for
criminal liability under that doctrine. It may plausibly be contended that command responsibility, as legal basis to
hold military/police commanders liable for extra -legal killings, enforced disappearances, or threats, may be made
applicable to this jurisdiction on the theory that the command responsibility doctrine now constitutes a principle of
international law or customary international law in accordance with the incorporation clause of the Constitution.
Still, it would be inappropriate to apply to these proceedings the doctrine of command responsibility, as the CA
seemed to have done, as a form of criminal complicity through omission, for individual respondents criminal
liability, if there be any, is beyond the reach of amparo. In other words, the Court does not rule in such
proceedings on any issue of criminal culpability, even if incidentally a crime or an infraction of an administrative
rule may have been committed.
The privilege of the writ of amparo is envisioned basically to protect and guarantee the rights to life, liberty, and
security of persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the quality of this life. It is an extraordinary writ
conceptualized and adopted in light of and in response to the prevalence of extra-legal killings and enforced
disappearances. Accordingly, the remedy ought to be resorted to and granted judiciously, lest the ideal sought by
the Amparo Rule be diluted and undermined by the indiscriminate filing of amparo petitions for purposes less than
the desire to secure amparo reliefs and protection and/or on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations.


G.R. No. 179267
June 25, 2013

Jesus Garcia (husband appears to have inflicted violence against private respondent (wife and daughter).
Petitioner admitted having an affair with a bank manager. He callously boasted about their sexual relations to the
household help. His infidelity emotionally wounded private respondent. Their quarrels left her with bruises and
hematoma. Petitioner also unconscionably beat up their daughter, Jo-ann, whom he blamed for squealing on him.

All these drove his wife Rosalie Garciato despair causing her to attempt suicide on December 17, 2005 by slitting
her wrist. Instead of taking her to the hospital, petitioner left the house. He never visited her when she was
confined for seven (7) days. He even told his mother-in-law that respondent should just accept his extramarital
affair since he is not cohabiting with his paramour and has not sired a child with her.

The private respondent was determined to separate from petitioner. But she was afraid he would take away their
children and deprive her of financial support. He warned her that if she pursued legal battle, she would not get a
single centavo from him. After she confronted him of his affair, he forbade her to hold office. This deprived her of
access to full information about their businesses.

Thus, the RTC found reasonable ground to believe there was imminent danger of violence against respondent and
her children and issued a series of Temporary Protection Orders (TPO) ordering petitioner, among other things, to
surrender all his firearms including a .9MM caliber firearm and a Walther PPK.

Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of RA 9262 for making a gender-based classification, thus, providing
remedies only to wives/women and not to husbands/men. He claims that even the title of the law, "An Act
Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children" is already sex-discriminatory because it means violence by
men against women.


Whether or Not R.A. No. 9262 is discriminatory, unjust, and violative of the equal protection clause.


NO. RA 9262 can be viewed therefore as the Philippines compliance with the CEDAW, which is committed to
condemn discrimination against women and directs its members to undertake, without delay, all appropriate
means to eliminate discrimination against women in all forms both in law and in practice.

CEDAW (Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Woman) is known as the
International Bill of Rights of Women. The CEDAW is the central and most comprehensive document for
the advancement of the welfare of women. The CEDAW, in its preamble, explicitly acknowledges the existence of
extensive discrimination against women, and emphasized that such is a violation of the principles of equality of
rights and respect for human dignity.

The Philippines is under legal obligation to ensure their development and advancement for the improvement of
their position from one of de jure as well as de facto equality with men. The CEDAW, going beyond the concept of
discrimination used in many legal standards and norms, focuses on discrimination against women, with the
emphasis that women have suffered and are continuing to suffer from various forms of discrimination on account
of their biological sex.

The governmental objectives of protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, which includes promoting
gender equality and empowering women, as mandated not only by our Constitution, but also by commitments
we have made in the international sphere, are undeniably important and essential.