G.R. No.

113213 August 15, 1994

PAUL JOSEPH WRIGHT, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JUDGE

JOSE DE LA RAMA, RTC, BRANCH 139, MAKATI, M.M. and HON. FRANK DRILON,
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, Respondents.

Rodrigo E. Mallari for petitioner.chanrobles virtual law library

Aurora Salva Bautista collaborating for petitioner.

KAPUNAN, J.:

A paramount principle of the law of extradition provides that a State may not surrender any
individual for any offense not included in a treaty of extradition. This principle arises from the
reality of extradition as a derogation of sovereignty. Extradition is an intrusion into the territorial
integrity of the host State and a delimitation of the sovereign power of the State within its own
territory. 1The act of extraditing amounts to a "delivery by the State of a person accused or
convicted of a crime, to another State within whose territorial jurisdiction, actual or constructive,
it was committed and which asks for his surrender with a view to execute justice." 2As it is an act
of "surrender" of an individual found in a sovereign State to another State which demands his
surrender 3, an act of extradition, even with a treaty rendered executory upon ratification by
appropriate authorities, does not imposed an obligation to extradite on the requested State until
the latter has made its own determination of the validity of the requesting State's demand, in
accordance with the requested State's own interests.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual
law library

The principles of international law recognize no right of extradition apart from that arising from
treaty.4Pursuant to these principles, States enter into treaties of extradition principally for the
purpose of bringing fugitives of justice within the ambit of their laws, under conventions
recognizing the right of nations to mutually agree to surrender individuals within their
jurisdiction and control, and for the purpose of enforcing their respective municipal laws. Since
punishment of fugitive criminals is dependent mainly on the willingness of host State to
apprehend them and revert them to the State where their offenses were committed, 5jurisdiction
over such fugitives and subsequent enforcement of penal laws can be effectively accomplished
only by agreement between States through treaties of
extradition.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Desiring to make more effective cooperation between Australia and the Government of the
Philippines in the suppression of crime, 6the two countries entered into a Treaty of Extradition on
the 7th of March 1988. The said treaty was ratified in accordance with the provisions of Section
21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution in a Resolution adopted by the Senate on September 10,
1990 and became effective thirty (30) days after both States notified each other in writing that
the respective requirements for the entry into force of the Treaty have been complied
with. 7chanrobles virtual law library
The Treaty adopts a "non-list, double criminality approach" which provides for broader coverage
of extraditable offenses between the two countries and (which) embraces crimes punishable by
imprisonment for at least one (1) year. Additionally, the Treaty allows extradition for crimes
committed prior to the treaty's date of effectivity, provided that these crimes were in the statute
books of the requesting State at the time of their
commission.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Under the Treaty, each contracting State agrees to extradite. . . "persons

. . . wanted for prosecution of the imposition or enforcement of a sentence in the Requesting
State for an extraditable offense." 8A request for extradition requires, if the person is accused of
an offense, the furnishing by the requesting State of either a warrant for the arrest or a copy of
the warrant of arrest of the person, or, where appropriate, a copy of the relevant charge against
the person sought to be extradited. 9chanrobles virtual law library

In defining the extraditable offenses, the Treaty includes all offenses "punishable under the Laws
of both Contracting States by imprisonment for a period of at least one (1) year, or by a more
severe penalty." 10For the purpose of the definition, the Treaty states that:

(a) an offense shall be an extraditable offense whether or not the laws of the Contracting States
place the offense within the same category or denominate the offense by the same
terminology;chanrobles virtual law library

(b) the totality of the acts or omissions alleged against the person whose extradition is requested
shall be taken into account in determining the constituent elements of the offense. 11chanrobles
virtual law library

Petitioner, an Australian Citizen, was sought by Australian authorities for indictable crimes in his
country. Extradition proceedings were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, which
rendered a decision ordering the deportation of petitioner. Said decision was sustained by the
Court of Appeals; hence, petitioner came to this Court by way of review on certiorari, to set
aside the order of deportation. Petitioner contends that the provision of the Treaty giving
retroactive effect to the extradition treaty amounts to an ex post facto law which violates Section
21 of Article VI of the Constitution. He assails the trial court's decision ordering his extradition,
arguing that the evidence adduced in the court below failed to show that he is wanted for
prosecution in his country. Capsulized, all the principal issues raised by the petitioner before this
Court strike at the validity of the extradition proceedings instituted by the government against
him.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, 12are undisputed:

On March 17, 1993, Assistant Secretary Sime D. Hidalgo of the Department of Foreign Affairs
indorsed to the Department of Justice Diplomatic Note No. 080/93 dated February 19, 1993 from
the Government of Australia to the Department of Justice through Attorney General Michael
Duffy. Said Diplomatic Note was a formal request for the extradition of Petitioner Paul Joseph
Wright who is wanted for the following indictable crimes:chanrobles virtual law library
1. Wright/Orr Matter - one count of Obtaining Property by Deception contrary to Section 81(1)
of the Victorian Crimes Act of 1958; andchanrobles virtual law library

2. Wright/Cracker Matter - Thirteen (13) counts of Obtaining Properties by Deception contrary to

Section 81(1) of the Victorian Crimes Act of 1958; one count of attempting to Obtain Property
by Deception contrary to Section 321(m) of Victorian Crimes Act of 1958; and one count of
Perjury contrary to Section 314 of Victorian Crimes Act of 1958, which crimes were allegedly
committed in the following manner:

The one (1) count of Obtaining Property by Deception contrary to Section 81 (1) of the Victorian
Crimes Act of 1958 constitutes in Mr. Wright's and co-offender, Herbert Lance Orr's, dishonesty
in obtaining $315,250 from Mulcahy, Mendelson and Round Solicitors (MM7R), secured by a
mortgage on the property in Bangholme, Victoria owned by Ruven Nominees Pty. Ltd., a
company controlled by a Rodney and a Mitchell, by falsely representing that all the relevant
legal documents relating to the mortgage had been signed by Rodney and Janine
Mitchell.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The thirteen (13) counts of Obtaining Property by Deception contrary to Section 81(1) of the
Victorian Crimes Act of 1958 constitutes in Mr. Wright's and co-offender Mr. John Carson
Craker's receiving a total of approximately 11.2 in commission (including $367,044 in bonus
commission) via Amazon Bond Pty. Ltd., depending on the volume of business written, by
submitting two hundred fifteen (215) life insurance proposals, and paying premiums thereon (to
the acceptance of the policies and payment of commissions) to the Australian Mutual Provident
(AMP) Society through the Office of Melbourne Mutual Insurance, of which respondent is an
insurance agent, out of which life proposals none are in existence and approximately 200 of
which are alleged to have been false, in one or more of the following ways:chanrobles virtual
law library

( i ) some policy-holders signed up only because they were told the policies were free (usually
for 2 years) and no payments were required.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law
library

(ii) some policy-holders were offered cash inducements ($50 or $100) to sign and had to supply a
bank account no longer used (at which a direct debit request for payment of premiums would
apply). These policy-holders were also told no payments by them were
required.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

(iii) some policy-holders were introduced through the "Daily Personnel Agency", and again were
told the policies were free for 2 years as long as an unused bank account was
applied.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

(iv) some policy-holders were found not to exist.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual

law library

The one count of Attempting to Obtain Property by Deception contrary to Section 321(m) of the
Victorian Crimes Act of 1958 constitutes in Mr. Wright's and Mr. Craker's attempting to cause
the payment of $2,870.68 commission to a bank account in the name of Amazon Bond Pty. Ltd.
by submitting one proposal for Life Insurance to the AMP Society, the policy-holder of which
does not exist with the end in view of paying the premiums thereon to insure acceptance of the
policy and commission payments.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The one count of Perjury contrary to Section 314 of Victorian Crimes Act of 1958 constitutes in
Mr. Wright's and Mr. Craker's signing and swearing before a Solicitor holding a current
practicing certificate pursuant to the Legal Profession Practice Act (1958), a Statutory
Declaration attesting to the validity of 29 of the most recent Life Insurance proposals of AMP
Society and containing three (3) false statements.

Pursuant to Section 5 of PD No. 1069, in relation to the Extradition Treaty concluded between
the Republic of the Philippines and Australia on September 10, 1990, extradition proceedings
were initiated on April 6, 1993 by the State Counsels of the Department of Justice before the
respondent court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In its Order dated April 13, 1993, the respondent court directed the petitioner to appear before it
on April 30, 1993 and to file his answer within ten days. In the same order, the respondent Judge
ordered the NBI to serve summons and cause the arrest of the
petitioner.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The respondent court received return of the warrant of arrest and summons signed by NBI Senior
Agent Manuel Almendras with the information that the petitioner was arrested on April 26, 1993
at Taguig, Metro Manila and was subsequently detained at the NBI detention cell where
petitioner, to date, continue to be held.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Thereafter, the petitioner filed his answer.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law

library

In the course of the trial, the petitioner testified that he was jobless, married to a Filipina, Judith
David, with whom he begot a child; that he has no case in Australia; that he is not a fugitive from
justice and is not aware of the offenses charged against him; that he arrived in the Philippines on
February 25, 1990 returned to Australia on March 1, 1990, then back to the Philippines on April
11, 1990, left the Philippines again on April 24, 1990 for Australia and returned to the
Philippines on May 24, 1990, again left for Australia on May 29, 1990 passing by Singapore and
then returned to the Philippines on June 25, 1990 and from that time on, has not left the
Philippines; and that his tourist visa has been extended but he could not produce the same in
court as it was misplaced, has neither produced any certification thereof, nor any temporary
working visa.

The trial court, in its decision dated 14 June 1993, granting the petition for extradition requested
by the Government of Australia, concluding that the documents submitted by the Australian
Government meet the requirements of Article 7 of the Treaty of Extradition and that the offenses
for which the petitioner were sought in his country are extraditable offenses under Article 2 of
the said Treaty. The trial court, moreover, held that under the provisions of the same Article,
extradition could be granted irrespective of when the offense - in relation to the extradition - was
committed, provided that the offense happened to be an offense in the requesting State at the
time the acts or omissions constituting the same were committed. 13chanrobles virtual law library

Petitioner challenged the decision of the Regional Trial Court before the Court of Appeals
assigning the following errors:

I. THAT THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING

RETROACTIVE FORCE AND EFFECT TO THE EXTRADITION TREATY DESPITE THE
FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE RESPONDENT SHOW THAT THE
ALLEGED OFFENSES FOR WHICH PETITIONER IS SOUGHT TO BE EXTRADITED
TOOK PLACE IN 1988-1989 AT THE TIME THERE WAS NO EXTRADITION TREATY
BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND
AUSTRALIA.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

II. THAT THE ACT OF THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT JUDGE IN GIVING

RETROACTIVE FORCE AND EFFECT TO THE EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND AUSTRALIA AMOUNTS TO AN "EX POST
FACTO LAW" AND VIOLATES SECTION 21, ARTICLE VII OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

III. THAT THE HON. RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED IN ORDERING THE
EXTRADITION OF PETITIONER DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED
DO NOT SHOW THAT PETITIONER IS WANTED FOR PROSECUTION IN
AUSTRALIA.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

IV. THAT THE HON. RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION,
AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION, IN MISINTERPRETING THE EXTENDED
STAY OF PETITIONER AS EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER'S DESIGN TO HIDE AND EVADE
PROSECUTION IN AUSTRALIA.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

V. THAT THE HON. RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED IN ORDERING THE

EXTRADITION OF PETITIONER WITHOUT SPECIFYING IN HIS ORDER OR DECISION
THE SPECIFIC CHARGES FOR WHICH PETITIONER IS TO STAND TRIAL IN
AUSTRALIA.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on September 14, 1993 and denied
petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration on December 16, 1993. 14Reiterating substantially the
same assignments of error which he interposed in the Court of Appeals, petitioner challenges in
this petition the validity of the extradition order issued by the trial court as affirmed by the Court
of Appeals under the Treaty. Petitioner vigorously argues that the trial court order violates the
Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. He avers that for the extradition order to be
valid, the Australian government should show that he "has a criminal case pending before a
competent court" in that country "which can legally pass judgement or acquittal or conviction
upon him."chanrobles virtual law library
Clearly, a close reading of the provisions of the Treaty previously cited, which are relevant to our
determination of the validity of the extradition order, reveals that the trial court committed no
error in ordering the petitioner's extradition. Conformably with Article 2, Section 2 of the said
Treaty, the crimes for which the petitioner was charged and for which warrants for his arrest
were issued in Australia were undeniably offenses in the Requesting State at the time they were
alleged to have been committed. From its examination of the charges against the petitioner, the
trial court correctly determined that the corresponding offenses under our penal laws are Articles
315(2) and 183 of the Revised Penal Code on swindling/estafa and false testimony/perjury,
respectively. 15chanrobles virtual law library

The provisions of Article 6 of the said Treaty pertaining to the documents required for extradition
are sufficiently clear and require no interpretation. The warrant for the arrest of an individual or a
copy thereof, a statement of each and every offense and a statement of the acts and omissions
which were alleged against the person in respect of each offense are sufficient to show that a
person is wanted for prosecution under the said article. All of these documentary requirements
were dully submitted to the trial court in its proceedings a quo. For purposes of the compliance
with the provisions of the Treaty, the signature and official seal of the Attorney-General of
Australia were sufficient to authenticate all the documents annexed to the Statement of the Acts
and Omissions, including the statement itself.16In conformity with the provisions of Article 7 of
the Treaty, the appropriate documents and annexes were signed by "an officer in or of the
Requesting State"17"sealed with . . . (a) public seal of the Requesting State or of a Minister of
State, or of a Department or officer of the Government of the Requesting State,"18and "certified
by a diplomatic or consular officer of the Requesting State accredited to the Requested
State." 19The last requirement was accomplished by the certification made by the Philippine
Consular Officer in Canberra, Australia.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The petitioner's contention that a person sought to be extradited should have a "criminal case
pending before a competent court in the Requesting State which can legally pass judgement of
acquittal or conviction" 20stretches the meaning of the phrase "wanted for prosecution" beyond
the intended by the treaty provisions because the relevant provisions merely require "a warrant
for the arrest or a copy of the warrant for the arrest of the person sought to be
extradited." 21Furthermore, the 'Charge and Warrant of Arrest Sheets' attest to the fact that
petitioner is not only wanted for prosecution but has, in fact, absconded to evade arrest and
criminal prosecution. Since a charge or information under the Treaty is required only when
appropriate, i.e., in cases where an individual charged before a competent court in the Requesting
State thereafter absconds to the Requested State, a charge or a copy thereof is not required if the
offender has in fact already absconded before a criminal complaint could be filed. As the Court
of Appeals correctly noted, limiting the phrase "wanted for prosecution" to person charged with
an information or a criminal complaint renders the Treaty ineffective over individuals who
abscond for the purpose of evading arrest and prosecution. 22chanrobles virtual law library

This brings us to another point raised by the petitioner both in the trial court and in the Court of
Appeals. May the extradition of the petitioner who is wanted for prosecution by the government
of Australia be granted in spite of the fact that the offenses for which the petitioner is sought in
his country were allegedly committed prior to the date of effectivity of the
Treaty.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Petitioner takes the position that under Article 18 of the Treaty its enforcement cannot be given
retroactive effect. Article 18 states:

ENTRY INTO FORCE AND TERMINATIONchanrobles virtual law library

This Treaty shall enter into force thirty (30) days after the date on which the Contracting States
have notified each other in writing that their respective requirements for the entry into force of
this Treaty have been complied with.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Either contracting State may terminate this Treaty by notice in writing at any time and it shall
cease to be in force on the one hundred and eightieth day after the day on which notice is given.

We fail to see how the petitioner can infer a prohibition against retroactive enforcement from this
provision. The first paragraph of Article 18 refers to the Treaty's date of effectivity; the second
paragraph pertains to its termination. Absolutely nothing in the said provision relates to, much
less, prohibits retroactive enforcement of the Treaty.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual
law library

On the other hand, Article 2(4) of the Treaty unequivocally provides that:

4. Extradition may be granted pursuant to provisions of this Treaty irrespective of when the
offense in relation to which extradition is requested was committed, provided that:chanrobles
virtual law library

(a) it was an offense in the Requesting State at the time of the acts or omissions constituting the
offense; andchanrobles virtual law library

(b) the acts or omissions alleged would, if they had taken place in the Territory of the Requested
State at the time of the making of the request for extradition, have constituted an offense against
the laws in force in that state.

Thus, the offenses for which petitioner is sought by his government are clearly extraditable under
Article 2 of the Treaty. They were offenses in the Requesting State at the time they were
committed, and, irrespective of the time they were committed, they fall under the panoply of the
Extradition Treaty's provisions, specifically, Article 2 paragraph 4, quoted
above.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Does the Treaty's retroactive application violate the Constitutional prohibition against ex post
facto laws?Early commentators understood ex post facto laws to include all laws of retrospective
application, whether civil or criminal. 23However, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, citing
Blackstone, The Federalist and other early U.S. state constitutions in Calder vs. Bull24concluded
that the concept was limited only to penal and criminal statutes. As conceived under our
Constitution, ex post facto laws are 1) statutes that make an act punishable as a crime when such
act was not an offense when committed; 2) laws which, while not creating new offenses,
aggravate the seriousness of a crime; 3) statutes which prescribes greater punishment for a crime
already committed; or, 4) laws which alter the rules of evidence so as to make it substantially
easier to convict a defendant.25"Applying the constitutional principle, the (Court) has held that
the prohibition applies only to criminal legislation which affects the substantial rights of the
accused." 26This being so, there is no absolutely no merit in petitioner's contention that the ruling
of the lower court sustaining the Treaty's retroactive application with respect to offenses
committed prior to the Treaty's coming into force and effect, violates the Constitutional
prohibition against ex post factolaws. As the Court of Appeals correctly concluded, the Treaty is
neither a piece of criminal legislation nor a criminal procedural statute. "It merely provides for
the extradition of persons wanted for prosecution of an offense or a crime which offense or crime
was already committed or consummated at the time the treaty was ratified." 27chanrobles virtual
law library

In signing the Treaty, the government of the Philippines has determined that it is within its
interests to enter into agreement with the government of Australia regarding the repatriation of
persons wanted for criminal offenses in either country. The said Treaty was concurred and
ratified by the Senate in a Resolution dated September 10, 1990. Having been ratified in
accordance with the provision of the 1987 Constitution, the Treaty took effect thirty days after
the requirements for entry into force were complied with by both
governments.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision of respondent Court of Appeals, we

hereby AFFIRM the same and DENY the instant petition for lack of
merit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.