Gr No 207342 Govt of Hk v Munoz

Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, represented by the Philippine Department of Justice v. Juan Antonio Muñoz G.R. No. 207342 November 7, 2017 Facts: Petitioner HKSAR posits that respondent Muñoz must be extradited fo r the crime of accepting an advantage as an agent . On the basis of the ruling in B. v. The Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the term agent  in  in Section 9 of the HKSAR’s Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POB) also covered public servants in anot her jurisdiction.

Issue: Whether or not respondent Juan Antonio Muñoz could be extradited to and tried by the HKSAR for the crime o f accepting an advantage as an agent Ruling: The petition was denied. Respondent cannot be extradited to the jurisdiction of the HKSAR. The rule of specialty  in  in international law states that a Requested State shall surrender to a Requesting State a per son to be tried only for a criminal offense specified in their treaty of extradition. Meanwhile, the dual criminality rule, as embodied in the extradition treaty between the Philippines and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), expressly provides that the Philippines as the Re quested State is not bound to extradite th e respondent to the jurisdiction of the HKSAR as the Requesting State for the offense of accepting an advantage as an agent. Such extradition treaty states that surrender shall only be granted for an offense coming within descriptions of offenses in its Article 2 insofar as the offenses are punishable by imprisonment or other form of detention for more than one year, o r by a more severe penalty according to the laws of both parties. Foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules on evidence, together with the alien’s applicable

national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself/herself. Despite the admission that Philippine courts lack expertise on the laws of HKSAR, qualified legal experts on the laws of HKSAR were consulted in the hearing before t he trial court and they shared the same opinion that t he offense defined in Section 9 of the POBO was a private sector of fense. In addition, petitioner did not present an official publication of the ruling or at least a copy of it attested by the proper office having legal custody. Hence, the ruling was not shown to be a public document under HKSAR.