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 a petition for extradition of respondent Juan Antonio Muñoz, an employee of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, by the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The respondent is wanted in Hong Kong for three counts of “accepting an advantage as an agent” under Section 9(1)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201, and seven counts of “conspiracy to defraud” under the Common Law of Hong Kong. The charges allege that on or about October 12, 1993, in Hong Kong, Muñoz accepted a deposit of US$1,020,000 as an inducement or reward for concealing payments relating to gold or silver dealings payable to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. The extradition is governed by the Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of Hong Kong for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons (RP-HK Agreement) and Presidential Decree No. 1069 (Philippine Extradition Law). The Court of Appeals denied the extradition request, finding that the offense of “accepting an advantage as an agent” did not satisfy the double criminality requirement, as it pertained to private sector bribery not penalized under Philippine law.

ISSUE

Whether the extradition request for the offense of “accepting an advantage as an agent” should be granted under the RP-HK Agreement, specifically considering if the totality of the acts alleged against the respondent constitutes an extraditable offense punishable under the laws of both the Philippines and Hong Kong.

RULING

The dissenting opinion argues that the extradition request should be GRANTED. It holds that under Article 2 of the RP-HK Agreement, surrender shall be granted if the offense is punishable under the laws of both parties by imprisonment for more than one year. The Agreement mandates that in determining double criminality, “the totality of the acts or omissions alleged against the person whose surrender is sought shall be taken into account, without reference to the elements of the offence prescribed by the law of the requesting Party.” The totality of the acts alleged against Muñoz—being a public officer, accepting a monetary advantage as an inducement for an act related to his office, and concealing payments due to the government—constitutes corrupt practices punishable under Philippine law, specifically Section 3(b) and/or Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). These acts are also punishable under Hong Kong’s Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. The legislative intent behind the Hong Kong law is irrelevant for extradition purposes under the treaty. The Court of Appeals erred by focusing on the specific elements of the Hong Kong offense and concluding it applied only to private sector bribery, contrary to the treaty’s directive to consider the totality of acts. Furthermore, Hong Kong jurisprudence (B v Comm. Of the Independent Commission Against Corruption) indicates that the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance can apply to public officials of places outside Hong Kong. Therefore, the double criminality requirement is satisfied, and surrender should be granted.