G.R. No. 207342 , August 16, 2016
Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region, represented by the Philippine Department of Justice, Petitioner, vs. Juan Antonio Munoz, Respondent.

FACTS

The case involves the extradition of respondent Juan Antonio Munoz to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) to face criminal charges. The request stemmed from his alleged involvement in fraudulent financial transactions during his tenure as Head of the Treasury Department of the Central Bank of the Philippines (CBP). HKSAR sought his extradition for three counts of “accepting an advantage as an agent” under Hong Kong’s Prevention of Bribery Ordinance and seven counts of “conspiracy to defraud” under common law. The extradition request was based on the RP-Hong Kong Extradition Agreement and Philippine Extradition Law (P.D. No. 1069). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially granted the extradition request. However, the Court of Appeals (CA), in an amended decision, excluded the charge of “accepting an advantage as an agent” for non-compliance with the double criminality rule, while upholding the extradition for “conspiracy to defraud.” The CA found that the act of accepting an advantage was not punishable under Philippine law at the time the request was received, as the conduct allegedly occurred in 1992-1993, and the applicable Philippine anti-graft law ( R.A. No. 3019 ) did not cover it because Munoz, as a CBP official, was not considered a “public officer” under that law’s definition at the time. The petitioner, HKSAR, appealed this partial exclusion.

ISSUE

Whether the extradition request of the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region sufficiently complied with the RP-HK Agreement and Presidential Decree No. 1069, specifically regarding the requirement of double criminality for the charge of “accepting an advantage as an agent.”

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the amended decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the charge of “accepting an advantage as an agent” failed to satisfy the double criminality rule under Article 2(4) of the RP-HK Agreement. For double criminality to exist, the conduct constituting the offense must be an offense under the law of the requesting party at the time it was committed and an offense under the law of the requested party at the time the request for surrender is received. The Court found that while the conduct was an offense in Hong Kong when committed, it was not an offense under Philippine law when the extradition request was received. The applicable Philippine law, Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), defined “public officer” based on the Administrative Code of 1987, which at the time specifically excluded officials of government-owned or controlled corporations performing proprietary functions. Since the Central Bank of the Philippines was performing proprietary functions in the gold swap transactions, Munoz was not considered a “public officer” under R.A. No. 3019 . Therefore, the act of “accepting an advantage” did not constitute a corrupt practice under Philippine law. The Court emphasized that the double criminality rule is a fundamental principle of extradition, and its non-compliance for this specific charge was fatal. The extradition for the seven counts of “conspiracy to defraud” was upheld, as this offense had a counterpart under the Philippine Revised Penal Code (estafa).