Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

GOV’T OF HONGKONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION VS HON.

OLALIA
Bail, Section 1, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure - is the surety for the release of a person in custody of the
law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required under the conditions
hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance.
Extradition:

FACTS:
Respondent Muñoz was charged of 3 counts of offences of “accepting an advantage as agent”, and 7 counts of
conspiracy to defraud, punishable by the common law of Hongkong. The Hongkong Depoartment of Justice requested
DOJ for the provisional arrest of respondent Muñoz; the DOJ forward the request to the NBI then to RTC. On the same
day, NBI agents arrested him.

Respondent filed with the CA a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with application for preliminary mandatory
injunction and writ of habeas corpus questioning the validity of the order of arrest.

The CA declared the arrest void. Hence this petition by the Hongkong Department of Justice thru DOJ.

DOJ filed a petition for certiorari in this Court and sustained the validity of the arrest.

Hongkong Administrative Region then filed in the RTC petition for extradition and arrest of respondent. Meanwhile,
respondent filed a petition for bail, which was opposed by the petitioner, initially the RTC denied the petition holding that
there is no Philippine Law granting bail in extradition cases and that private responded is a “flight risk”.

Motion for reconsideration was filed by the respondent, which was granted. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not right to bail can be avail in extradition cases.

HELD:
In Purganan case, the right to bail was not included in the extradition cases, since it is available only in criminal
proceedings.

However the Supreme Court, recognised the following trends in International Law.
1. The growing importance of the individual person in publican international law who, in the 20th century attained global
recognition.
2. The higher value now being given in human rights in international sphere
3. The corresponding duty of countries to observe these human rights in fulfilling their treaty obligations
4. The of duty of this court to balance the rights of the individual under our fundamental law, on one hand, and the law on
extradition on the other.

The modern trend in the public international law is the primacy placed on the sanctity of human rights.

Enshrined the Constitution “The state values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for
human rights.” The Philippines therefore, has the responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of every
person to liberty and due process, ensuring that those detained or arrested can participate in the proceeding
before the a court, to enable it to decide without delay on the legality of the detention and order their release if
justified.

Examination of this Court in the doctrines provided for in the US Vs Purganan provide the following.
1. The exercise of the State’s police power to deprive a person of his liberty is not limited to criminal proceedings.
2. To limit the right to bail in the criminal proceeding would be to close our eyes to jurisprudential history. Philippines has not
limited the exercise of the right to bail to criminal proceedings only. This Court has admitted to bail persons who are not
involved in criminal proceedings. In fact, bail has been involved in this jurisdiction to persons in detention during the
tendency of administrative proceedings, taking into cognisance the obligation of the Philippines under international
conventions to uphold human rights.

EXTRADITION, is defined as the removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal
of foreign authorities to enable the requesting state or government to hold him in connection with criminal investigation
directed against him or execution of a penalty imposed on him under the penal and criminal law of the requesting state or
government. Thus characterized as the right of the a foreign power, created by treaty to demand the surrender of one
accused or convicted of a crimes within its territorial jurisdiction, and the correlative obligation of the other state to
surrender him to the demanding state.

The extradited may be subject to detention as may be necessary step in the process of extradition, but the length of time
in the detention should be reasonable.

In the case at bar, the record show that the respondent, Muñoz has been detained for 2 years without being convicted in
Hongkong.

The Philippines has the obligation of ensuring the individual his right to liberty and due process and should not therefor
deprive the extraditee of his right to bail PROVIDED that certain standards for the grant is satisfactorily met. In other
words there should be “CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE”.

However in the case at bar, the respondent was not able to show and clear and convincing evidence that he be entitled to
bail. Thus the case is remanded in the court for the determination and otherwise, should order the cancellation of his bond
and his immediate detention.

Facts: Leonardo H. Villa, a first year law student of Petitioner University, died of
serious physical injuries at Chinese General Hospital after the initiation rites of Aquila Legis.
Bienvenido Marquez was also hospitalized at the Capitol Medical Center for acute renal
failure occasioned by the serious physical injuries inflicted upon him on the same occasion.
Petitioner Dean Cynthia del Castillo created a Joint Administration-Faculty-Student
Investigating Committee which was tasked to investigate and submit a report within 72
hours on the circumstances surrounding the death of Lennie Villa. Said notice also required
respondent students to submit their written statements within twenty-four (24) hours from
receipt. Although respondent students received a copy of the written notice, they failed to
file a reply. In the meantime, they were placed on preventive suspension. The Joint
Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating Committee, after receiving the written
statements and hearing the testimonies of several witness, found a prima facie case against
respondent students for violation of Rule 3 of the Law School Catalogue entitled "Discipline."
Respondent students were then required to file their written answers to the formal charge.
Petitioner Dean created a Disciplinary Board to hear the charges against respondent
students. The Board found respondent students guilty of violating Rule No. 3 of the Ateneo
Law School Rules on Discipline which prohibits participation in hazing activities. However, in
view of the lack of unanimity among the members of the Board on the penalty of dismissal,
the Board left the imposition of the penalty to the University Administration. Accordingly, Fr.
Bernas imposed the penalty of dismissal on all respondent students. Respondent students
filed with RTC Makati a TRO since they are currently enrolled. This was granted. A TRO was
also issued enjoining petitioners from dismissing the respondents. A day after the expiration
of the temporary restraining order, Dean del Castillo created a Special Board to investigate
the charges of hazing against respondent students Abas and Mendoza. This was requested
to be stricken out by the respondents and argued that the creation of the Special Board was
totally unrelated to the original petition which alleged lack of due process. This was granted
and reinstatement of the students was ordered.

Issue: Was there denial of due process against the respondent students.

Held: There was no denial of due process, more particularly procedural due process.
Dean of the Ateneo Law School, notified and required respondent students to submit their
written statement on the incident. Instead of filing a reply, respondent students requested
through their counsel, copies of the charges. The nature and cause of the accusation were
adequately spelled out in petitioners' notices. Present is the twin elements of notice and
hearing.

Respondent students argue that petitioners are not in a position to file the instant petition
under Rule 65 considering that they failed to file a motion for reconsideration first before the
trial court, thereby by passing the latter and the Court of Appeals. It is accepted legal
doctrine that an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies is when the case
involves a question of law, as in this case, where the issue is whether or not respondent
students have been afforded procedural due process prior to their dismissal from Petitioner
University.

Minimum standards to be satisfied in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academic


institutions, such as petitioner university herein, thus:

(1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation
against them;
(2) that they shall have the right to answer the charges against them with the assistance of
counsel, if desired:
(3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them
(4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and
(5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official
designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.

ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY VS. HON. JUDGE IGNACIO


CAPULONG [222 SCRA 644; G.R. 99327; 27 MAY 1993]
222 SCRA 644 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – Academic Freedom – Power of School to Dismiss Erring Students
On February 8, 9, and 10 of 1991, a fraternity in Ateneo Law School named Aquila Legis conducted its initiation
rites upon neophytes. Unfortunately, one neophyte died as a result thereof and one was hospitalized due to
serious physical injuries. In a resolution dated March 9, 1991, the Disciplinary Board formed by Ateneo found
seven students guilty of violating Rule 3 of the Rules on Discipline. Fr. Joaquin Bernas, then president of Ateneo,
on the basis of the findings, ordered the expulsion of the seven students. However, on May 17, 1991, Judge Ignacio
Capulong of the Makati RTC, upon the students’ petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, ordered Ateneo
to reverse its decision and reinstate the said students.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Ateneo Law School has competence to issue an order dismissing such students
pursuant to its rules.
HELD: Yes, Ateneo has the competence and the power to dismiss its erring students and therefore it had validly
exercised such power. The students do not deserve to claim such a venerable institution such as Ateneo as their
own a minute longer for they may forseeably cast a malevolent influence on students currently enrolled as well as
those who come after them. This is academic freedom on the part of the school which includes:
a. freedom to determine who may teach;
b. freedom to determine what may be taught;
c. freedom to determine how it shall be taught;
d. freedom to determine who may be admitted to study.

1. Case Name: Sps. Eugene C. Go and Angelita Go, and Minor Emerson Chester Kim B. Go vs.
Colegio De San Juan De Letran, et al.
2. Docket No.: G.R. No. 169391
3. The Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
4. The Date: October 10, 2012
5. The Ponente: Arturo D. Brion
6. Name of Counsel: Not mentioned

7. The Opinion

Facts:

In October 2001, Mr. George Isleta, the Head of Letran’s Auxiliary Services Department,
received information that certain fraternities were recruiting new members among Letran’s high
school students, together with the list of allegedly involved students.

The school conducted medical examinations on the students involved and on November 20,
2002, Dr. Emmanuel Asuncion, the school physician, reported that six (6) students bore injuries
on the posterior portions of their thighs. Mr. Rosarda, the Assistant Prefect for Discipline,
conferred with the students and asked for their explanations in writing.

Four (4) students, admitted that they were neophytes of the Tau Gamma Fraternity and were
present in a hazing rite held in Tondo, Manila. They also identified the senior members of the
fraternity present at their hazing. These included Kim, then a fourth year high school student.

In the meantime, the school’s security officer, prepared an incident report that the Tau Gamma
Fraternity has been recruiting members from Letran’s high school department. He had spoken to
one of the fraternity neophytes and obtained a list of eighteen (18) members of the fraternity
currently enrolled at the high school department. Kim’s name was also in the list.

Mr. Rosarda has informed Kim’s mother, Mrs. Go, that her son is a fraternity member whereas
she expressed her disbelief stating that her son has always been in constant supervision.

Mr. Rosarda thereafter spoke to Kim and asked him to explain his side. Kim responded through
a written statement dated December 19, 2001; he denied that he was a fraternity member.

In time, the respondents found that twenty-nine (29) of their students, including Kim, were
fraternity members. The respondents found substantial basis in the neophytes’ statements that
Kim was a senior fraternity member. Based on their disciplinary rules, the Father Prefect for
Discipline (respondent Rev. Fr. Jose Rhommel Hernandez) recommended the fraternity
members’ dismissal from the high school department rolls

On January, 2002, the petitioners filed a complaint for damages before the RTC of Caloocan
City claiming that the respondents had unlawfully dismissed Kim. They refused to accept the
respondents’ finding that Kim was a fraternity member. They likewise insisted that due process
had not been observed. Mr. and Mrs. Go also sought compensation for the “business
opportunity losses” they suffered while personally attending to Kim’s disciplinary case.
In ruling for the petitioners, the RTC ruled that Kim was dismissed without due process, his
membership in the fraternity was not duly proven, and the the school had no authority to dismiss
KIM from school.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with the RTC and reversed the decision, thereby prompting the
petitioners to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not the CA had erred in setting aside the decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. C-
19938, whereas petitioners claim that respondents had unlawfully dismissed Kim from the high
school department rolls

RULING

the RTC’s statement that Letran, a private school, possesses no authority to impose a dismissal,
or any disciplinary action for that matter, on students who violate its policy against fraternity
membership must be corrected. The RTC reasoned out that Order No. 20, series of 1991, of the
then Department of respondents cite as legal basis for Letran’s policy, only covered public high
schools and not private high schools such as Letran.

However, in ascertaining the meaning of DECS Order No. 20, s. 1991, the entire order must be
read in whole, not in isolated parts, but with reference to every other part and every word and
phrase in connection with its context.

The order’s title may also serve as an aid for construction, which states, “Prohibition of
Fraternities and Sororities in Elementary and Secondary Schools.” This serves to clarify
whatever ambiguity in the fourth paragraph. It directs the prohibition to elementary and
secondary schools in general, and does not distinguish between private and public schools.

Incidentally, the penalty for non-compliance with DECS Order No. 20, s. 1991, is expulsion, a
severe form of disciplinary penalty consisting of excluding a student from admission to any
public or private school in the country. In contrast, the penalty prescribed by the rules of Letran
for fraternity membership among their high school students is dismissal, which is limited to the
exclusion of an erring student from the rolls of the school.

Private schools have the authority to promulgate and enforce a similar prohibition pursuant to
their right to establish disciplinary rules and regulations. This right has been recognized in the
Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, which has the character of law.

DECISION

The Supreme Court finds no reversible error in the assailed CA decision, and accordingly, deny
the present decision. The Supreme Court hereby affirms the decision dated May 27, 2005 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 80349.

Lao Gi v Court of Appeals

Facts:
Herein petitioner faces a charge for deportation when a judgment was rendered cancelling his citizenship
(obtained from a prior judgment) on the ground that it was founded on fraud and misrepresentation. Petitioners
were required to register as aliens but refused. They filed a motion for reconsideration of the of the order directing
them to register as aliens and to oppose the motion for their arrest but was denied by Acting Commissioner Nituda.
Petitioners filed for certiorari in the CFI of Manila which was dismissed fo lack of legal basis. Petition for certiorari
was also dismissed on appeal in the CA and a motion for reconsideration was also denied. Hence, the present
petition.

Issue:
WON petitioners are entitled to the right to due process even if they are aliens.

Held:
The power to deport an alien is an act of the State. It is an act by or under the authority of the sovereign power. It is
a police measure against undesirable aliens whose presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public
good and domestic tranquility of the people.

Although a deportation proceeding does not partake of the nature of a criminal action, however, considering that it is
a harsh and extraordinary administrative proceeding affecting the freedom and liberty of a person, the constitutional
right of such person to due process should not be denied. Thus, the provisions of the Rules of Court of the Philippines
particularly on criminal procedure are applicable to deportation proceedings.

Under Section 37(c) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 as amended, it is provided:

c)No alien shall be deported without being informed of the specific grounds for deportation nor without being
given a hearing under rules of procedure to be prescribed by the Commissioner of Immigration.
Hence, the charge against an alien must specify the acts or omissions complained of which must be stated in
ordinary and concise language to enable a person of common understanding to know on what ground he is
intended to be deported and enable the CID to pronounce a proper judgment.

Petition is hereby granted and the questioned order of the respondent commission on immigration and
deportation is hereby set aside.