The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stephen J. Hillman United States Magistrate Judge
A Fugitive from the Government of the Republic of the Philippines.
Complainant United States of America ("Government"), acting on behalf of the Government of the Republic of the Phillippines, filed a request to extradite Mary Lynn Cortel Madrono ("Madrono").*fn1 The Government filed a memorandum in support of the request ("Memorandum"), Madrono filed an opposition to the request, the Government filed a reply to the opposition, the Government filed both a Lodging of a Supplemental Affidavit (two letters and a Supplemental Affidavit) and a Lodging of a Supplemental Letter, Madrono filed a supplemental opposition to the request, the Government filed a supplemental reply to the supplemental opposition, and Madrono filed a declaration in support of her opposition to the request. An extradition hearing was held on June 15, 2012. The Court's findings herein are based on its review of all of the evidence and arguments presented by the parties in their papers.*fn2
The Philippines' charges upon which extradition is sought all revolve around Madrono's actions on May 24, 2005 as the Branch Head of the Visayas Avenue Branch of the United Coconut Planters Bank in Quezon City, the Phillippines. Madrono has been charged in the Philippines with eleven charges -- five counts of Qualified Theft Through Falsification of Commercial Document (withdrawal slips); two counts of Qualified Theft (pre-terminated*fn3 Certificates of Time Deposit]); and four counts of Falsification of Commercial Document (deposit slips). (See Memorandum, Exhibit A ["Exhibit A"] at 40, 44-47, 59-60, 63-84).*fn4 Warrants for Madrono's arrest for Qualified Theft through Falsification of Commercial Document were issued in the Philippines on January 17, 2006 (see id. at 85-89), and Madrono is the person being sought by the Philippines. The following summary places the charges in context.
II. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS*fn5
At the time of the events in question, Madrono was employed as the Branch Head of the Visayas Avenue Branch of United Coconut Planters Bank. Madrono was the overall supervisor and was responsible for planning, organizing, directing, coordinating and controlling the activities of that branch. Madrono also was responsible for developing and managing relationships with customers and promoting the bank's services, developing existing accounts, soliciting prospective depositors, and ensuring customer service. Madrono was authorized to sign bank documents, and was responsible for verifying and approving the opening and renewal of accounts as well as the withdrawals, terminations, and pre-termination of accounts. (See Exhibit A at 90, 120, 150).
On May 24, 2005, Madrono gave Ana Sicat ("Sicat"), a bank teller at the Visayas Avenue Branch, five deposit slips -- already containing handwritten dates, account numbers, and amount in words and figures -- for processing. Sicat asked about the actual cash deposits corresponding to the deposit transactions, and Madrono said that the deposits would be funded with withdrawals later during the day. Therefore, Sicat posted the five deposits. (See id. at 90-91, 93).*fn6
That same day, Madrono instructed Angelica Gatinga ("Gatinga"), Marketing Associate of the Visayas Avenue Branch, to pre-terminate Certificates of Time Deposit ("CTD") for two different accounts. Madrono handed Gatinga the original copy of the CTD for one account and a duplicate copy of the CTD for another account (Madrono claimed the client had the original, and that she would get it from the client later), and instructed Gatinga to deposit the proceeds into the savings account of Avelina Navarez (one of the accounts for which Madrono had earlier given Sicat a deposit slip for processing). Gatinga pre-terminated the two CTDs, without the authorization or consent of the clients. Gatinga gave Sicat a deposit slip for the account of Avelina Navarez*fn7 -- the proceeds of the pre-terminated CTDs -- for processing. Sicat posted the deposit. Madrono then obtained from Gatinga original and duplicate copies of the transaction ticket pertaining to one CTD (Madrono said she would get the signature of the client), and the duplicate copy and corresponding transaction ticket for the other CTD. (See id. at 91, 93-94, 96, 121-22, 125).*fn8
That afternoon, Madrono gave Sicat five withdrawal slips -- already containing handwritten dates, account numbers (two of which were the same accounts for which Madrono had earlier given Sicat deposit slips), and amount in words and figures -- for processing. The withdrawal slips had been approved and signed by Madrono, although though they did not contain the signatures of the depositors. Sicat processed the withdrawals. The original copies were given to Madrono to obtain the signatures of the clients. Based on Madrono's confirmation of the withdrawal slip transactions and on Madrono's statement that she would have the clients sign the withdrawal slips, Ariel Lopez ("Lopez"), the Service Control Officer at the Visayas Avenue Branch, overrode the five withdrawal slip transactions. (See id. at 94, 98, 100, 121-22, 125, 127-31).*fn9*fn10
From May 25, 2005 to June 5, 2005, Madrono went on mandatory leave. On June 1, 2005, Madrono and two sons flew to the United States. Madrono's husband and another son flew to the United States three days later. Madrono left the Philippines without applying for a leave of absence and without turning over her responsibilities to the appropriate bank officer. Madrono was supposed to return to work on June 6, 2005, but did not do so. (See id. at 91, 122-23, 136-40*fn11 ).
A. The Government Has Met the Requirements for a Certificate of Extradition.
In order to secure the Certificate of Extradition, the Government must satisfy the following requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3184: (1) An extradition Treaty is in force between the Philippines and the United States; (2) The Treaty allows for extradition on the crimes charged against Madrono; and (3) There is probable cause that Madrono committed each of the charges for which extradition is sought. See also Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311, 312, 45 S.Ct. 541, 69 L.Ed. 970 (1925); Prasoprat v. Benov, 421 F.3d 1009, ...