Sil Case

NICOLAS V.
ROMULO
578 SCRA 438 Political Law Constitutional Law Ratification of a Treaty Validity of
the Visiting Forces Agreement
**This case is consolidated with Salonga vs Daniel Smith & BAYAN vs Gloria
Arroyo
On the 1st of November 2005, Daniel Smith committed the crime of rape against Nicole.
He was convicted of the said crime and was ordered by the court to suffer imprisonment.
Smith was a US serviceman convicted of a crime against our penal laws and the crime
was committed within the countrys jurisdiction. But pursuant to the VFA, a treaty between
the US and Philippines, the US embassy was granted custody over Smith. Nicole,
together with the other petitioners appealed before the SC assailing the validity of the
VFA. Their contention is that the VFA was not ratified by the US senate in the same way
our senate ratified the VFA.
ISSUE: Is the VFA void and unconstitutional & whether or not it is self-executing.
HELD: The VFA is a self-executing Agreement because the parties intend its provisions
to be enforceable, precisely because the VFA is intended to carry out obligations and
undertakings under the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty. As a matter of fact, the VFA has
been implemented and executed, with the US faithfully complying with its obligation to
produce Smith before the court during the trial.
The VFA is covered by implementing legislation inasmuch as it is the very purpose and
intent of the US Congress that executive agreements registered under this Act within 60
days from their ratification be immediately implemented. The SC noted that the VFA is
not like other treaties that need implementing legislation such as the Vienna Convention.
As regards the implementation of the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty, military aid or
assistance has been given under it and this can only be done through implementing
legislation. The VFA itself is another form of implementation of its provisions.
Cuevaz v. Muoz (G.R. No. 140520; December 18, 2000)

Facts:
The Hong Kong Magistrate s Court at Eastern Magistracy issued a warrant for the arrest
of respondent Juan Antonio Muoz for seven (7) counts of accepting an advantage as an
agent and seven (7) counts of conspiracy to defraud, contrary to the common law of Hong
Kong The Department of Justice received a request for the provisional arrest of the
respondent from the Mutual Legal Assistance Unit, International Law Division of the Hong
Kong Department of Justice pursuant to Article 11(1) of the RP-Hong Kong Extradition
Agreement. Upon application of the NBI, RTC of Manila issued an Order granting the
application for provisional arrest and issuing the corresponding Order of Arrest.
Consequently, respondent was arrested pursuant to the said order, and is currently
detained at the NBI detention cell. Respondent filed with the Court of Appeals, a petition
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with application for preliminary mandatory
injunction and/or writ of habeas corpus assailing the validity of the Order of Arrest. The
Court of Appeals rendered a decision declaring the Order of Arrest null and void on the
grounds, among others that the request for provisional arrest and the accompanying
warrant of arrest and summary of facts were unauthenticated and mere facsimile copies
which are insufficient to form a basis for the issuance of the Order of Arrest. Thus,
petitioner Justice Serafin R. Cuevas, in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department
of Justice, lost no time in filing the instant petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the request for provisional arrest of respondent and its accompanying
documents must be authenticated.
Held:
The request for provisional arrest of respondent and its accompanying documents is valid
despite lack of authentication. There is no requirement for the authentication of a request
for provisional arrest and its accompanying documents. The enumeration in the provision
of RP-Hong Kong Extradition Agreement does not specify that these documents must be
authenticated copies. This may be gleaned from the fact that while Article 11(1) does not
require the accompanying documents of a request for provisional arrest to be
authenticated, Article 9 of the same Extradition Agreement makes authentication a
requisite for admission in evidence of any document accompanying a request for
surrender or extradition. In other words, authentication is required for the request for
surrender or extradition but not for the request for provisional arrest. The RP-Hong Kong
Extradition Agreement, as they are worded, serves the purpose sought to be achieved by
treaty stipulations for provisional arrest. The process of preparing a formal request for
extradition and its accompanying documents, and transmitting them through diplomatic
channels, is not only time-consuming but also leakage-prone. There is naturally a great
likelihood of flight by criminals who get an intimation of the pending request for their
extradition. To solve this problem, speedier initial steps in the form of treaty stipulations
for provisional arrest were formulated. Thus, it is an accepted practice for the requesting
state to rush its request in the form of a telex or diplomatic cable. Respondent s reliance
on Garvida v. Sales, Jr. is misplaced. The proscription against the admission of a pleading
that has been transmitted by facsimile machine has no application in the case at bar for
obvious reasons. First, the instant case does not involve a pleading; and second, unlike
the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure which do not sanction the filing of a pleading by means of a facsimile
machine, P.D. No. 1069 and the RP Hong Kong Extradition Agreement do not prohibit
the transmission of a request for provisional arrest by means of a fax machine.

Sil Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sil Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sil Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NICOLAS V.

Cuevaz v. Muoz (G.R. No. 140520; December 18, 2000)

You might also like