Petitioner thereafter file an urgent motion for bail

Petitioner, thereafter, file an Urgent Motion for
Bail but such motion is opposed by the
prosecution for the reason that petitioner should
be arraign first before he can avail of Bail. Later
on Petitioner simultaneously filed a motion to
quash. The bail hearing was reset several times
due to various pleadings filed by petitioner and
the prosecution. Due to this, petitioner filed a
petition for habeas corpus for the reason that the
prosecution have waived their right to present
evidence in opposition to his petition for bail; the
prosecution launched an endless barrage of
obstructive and dilatory moves to prevent the
conduct of the bail hearings; and, on the failure
of the People to adduce strong evidence of his
guilt. Should the petition for habeas corpus be
granted?
Answer: No. Petition for habeas corpus is not the
appropriate remedy for asserting ones right to bail. It
cannot be availed of where accused is entitled to bail not
as a matter of right but on the discretion of the court and
the latter has not abused such discretion in refusing to
grant bail, or has not even exercised said discretion. The
proper recourse is to file an application for bail with the
court where the criminal case is pending and to allow
hearings thereon to proceed. Serapio vs.
Sandiganbayan.
 Respondent Muñoz was charged before the
Hong Kong Court with 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 7 counts of the offense of conspiracy to
defraud, penalized by the common law of Hong
Kong. Warrants of arrest were issued against
him. The DOJ received from the Hong Kong
Department of Justice a request for the
provisional arrest of private respondent. The
RTC issued an Order of Arrest against private
respondent. That same day, the NBI agents
arrested and detained him. Private respondent
filed a petition for bail; 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 private respondent is a high "flight risk."
Judge Bernardo, Jr. inhibited himself from
further hearing the case, it was then raffled off to
another branch presided by respondent judge.
Private respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Order denying his
application for bail and this was granted by
respondent judge. Did the respondent judge act
with grave abuse of discretion as there is no
provision in the Constitution granting bail to a
potential extraditee?
Answer: 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.