When Charlie “Atong” Ang arrives in Manila this week, he would of course be served the arrest warrant pending in his name in People vs. Estrada, et al, for plunder, where is a co-principal accused. That arrest warrant is valid only within Philippine territory even if the NBI officers who went to Las Vegas had it with them. In the U.S., on the day of his extradition, he would either voluntarily surrender or be apprehended for purpose of extradition on the strength of a U.S. court order. (It would be recalled that this is in response to an old standing request from the Philippine government for his extradition.)
As stated, once in Manila he would be served his Philippine arrest warrant, or he would be informed of the existence of such arrest warrant. He would thereupon be mirandized for purposes of serving the warrant, that is, he would be read his rights, etc..If he doesn’t have a lawyer, one would be provided him by the government. He would then be brought and detained in a government detention facility until the Sandiganbayan orders his detention in a specific detention center.
Since he is detained, his lawyers are expected to make their motions. Of course. If they think his detention is illegal and has no basis they would file a habeas corpus petition (I doubt that they would file this considering that charges have long been filed, etc.). Normally, his lawyers would probably file a motion for bail (bail is a matter of right even in capital offenses except where the evidence of guilt is strong).
Normally, while all these are going on, his lawyers too might send overtures to the prosecution for their client to be admitted as state witness and therefore be given immunity and be discharged as accused and therefore be set free.
The disposition of this request would depend on the prosecution. The court would then normally set a date for his arraignment. He would then be arraigned (the charges read to him in open court, where he would enter his plea). If his lawyers have negotiations with the prosecution, they would normally stall (dribble). If there are none, his lawyers would normally ask that their motion for bail be heard right away, and it would be set for hearings.
During the bail hearings, the prosecution can normally either ask to stipulate that the pertinent evidence (prosecution would enumerate which pieces) that had been presented before (in the almost five years of trial) be considered as reproduced. The accused through his lawyers normally might invoke his right to confront the witnesses against him (this would of course lengthen his bail hearings, but that’s his lawyers’ call). If he does, then the witnesses would be re-called to afford him the right to confront the witnesses against him (right to confront means his right to cross-examine them). This would probably be 20 or 30 or so witnesses. The prosecution can request to stipulate that the direct examination previously done be considered reproduced, but the accused might object and ask that they repeat themselves, etc. His lawyers would then cross-examine. So the bail hearings would normally go on, then be submitted for decision. After that, the rest of the evidence against him not presented during the bail hearings, if any more, would be presented. Then, formal offer. Then memorandum. Then the case is submitted for decision.
That’s it. That’s the normal procedure. (He would probably want another procedure where he offers himself as state witness. That depends, there’s nothing on the table. He would just be mirandized when he arrives.)