Like us on Facebook

Please wait..10 Seconds Cancel

PILA Case Digest: Rodriguez v. Hon. Presiding Judge of RTC Manila Branch 17 (2006)

Rodriguez v. Hon. Presiding Judge of RTC Manila Branch 17
GR. NO. 157977 Feb. 27 2006

Lessons: Notice and Hearing for Cancellation of Bail in Extradition



    After the arrest of petitioners Eduardo Tolentino Rodriguez and Imelda Gener Rodriguez,
they applied for bail which the trial court granted on September 25, 2001.  They posted cash bonds for the bail set for P1M for each. The US government moved for reconsideration of the grant of bail which was denied.  The US government filed a petition for certiorari entitled Gov’t of the USA v. Hon. Ponferrada where the court directed the trial court to resolve the matter of bail guided by this court’s ruling on Government of the USA v. Hon. Purganan.  The lower court, without prior notice and hearing, cancelled the cash bond of the petitioners and ordered the issuance of a warrant of arrest.  Petitioners filed a very urgent motion for the reconsideration of the cancellation of their bail which was denied.  Hence, this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition directed against the order for cancellation of cash bond and issuance of a warrant of arrest.

ISSUE: Whether or NOT there should be notice and hearing before the cancellation of bail


The grant of the bail, presupposes that the co-petitioner has already presented evidence to
prove her right to be on bail, that she is no flight risk, and the trial court had already exercised its sound discretion and had already determined that under the Constitution and laws in force, co-petitioner is entitled to provisional release. 

Under these premises, co-petitioner Imelda Gener Rodriguez has offered to go on
voluntary extradition; that she and her husband had posted a cash bond of P1 million each; that her husband had already gone on voluntary extradition and is presently in the USA undergoing trial; that the passport of co-petitioner is already in the possession of the authorities; that she never attempted to flee; that there is an existing hold-departure order against her; and that she is now in her 60’s, sickly and under medical treatment, we believe that the benefits of continued temporary liberty on bail should not be revoked and their grant of bail should not be cancelled, without the co-petitioner being given notice and without her being heard why her temporary liberty should not be discontinued.  Absent prior notice and hearing, the bail’s cancellation was in violation of her right to due process.

We emphasize that bail may be granted to a possible extraditee only upon a clear and
convincing showing that:
1)    he will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and
2)    there exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances