Petitioner, thereafter, file an Urgent Motion forBail but such motion is opposed by theprosecution for the reason that petitioner shouldbe arraign first before he can avail of Bail. Lateron Petitioner simultaneously filed a motion toquash. The bail hearing was reset several timesdue to various pleadings filed by petitioner andthe prosecution. Due to this, petitioner filed apetition for habeas corpus for the reason that theprosecution have waived their right to presentevidence in opposition to his petition for bail; theprosecution launched an endless barrage ofobstructive and dilatory moves to prevent theconduct of the bail hearings; and, on the failureof the People to adduce strong evidence of hisguilt. Should the petition for habeas corpus begranted?Answer: No. Petition for habeas corpus is not theappropriate remedy for asserting ones right to bail. Itcannot be availed of where accused is entitled to bail notas a matter of right but on the discretion of the court andthe latter has not abused such discretion in refusing togrant bail, or has not even exercised said discretion. Theproper recourse is to file an application for bail with thecourt where the criminal case is pending and to allowhearingsthereontoproceed.Serapiovs.Sandiganbayan.Respondent Muñoz was charged before theHong Kong Court with 3 counts of the offense of"accepting an advantage as agent," in violationof Section 9 (1) (a) of the Prevention of BriberyOrdinance, Cap. 201 of Hong Kong. He alsofaces 7 counts of the offense of conspiracy todefraud, penalized by the common law of HongKong. Warrants of arrest were issued againsthim. The DOJ received from the Hong KongDepartment of Justice a request for theprovisional arrest of private respondent. TheRTC issued an Order of Arrest against privaterespondent. That same day, the NBI agentsarrested and detained him. Private respondentfiled a petition for bail; after hearing, JudgeBernardo, Jr. issued an Order denying thepetition for bail, holding that there is noPhilippine law granting bail in extradition casesand that private respondent is a high "flight risk."Judge Bernardo, Jr. inhibited himself fromfurther hearing the case, it was then raffled off toanother branch presided by respondent judge.Private respondent filed a motion forreconsideration of the Order denying hisapplication for bail and this was granted byrespondent judge. Did the respondent judge actwith grave abuse of discretion as there is noprovision in the Constitution granting bail to apotential extraditee?Answer: No. Bearing in mind the purpose of extraditionproceedings, the premise behind the issuance of thearrest warrant and the "temporary detention" is thepossibility of flight of the potential extraditee. This isbased on the assumption that such extraditee is afugitive from justice. Given the foregoing, the prospectiveextraditee thus bears the onus probandiof showing thathe or she is not a flight risk and should be granted bail.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 6 pages?
criminal law, Appellate court, Judge Donato & Salas