In re: Harvey v Santiago GR 82544
agents.
Facts: This is a petition for Habeas Corpus. Petitioners are the following:
American nationals Andrew Harvey, 52 and Jonh Sherman 72. Dutch Citizen
Adriaan Van Den Elshout, 58. All reside at Pagsanjan Laguna respondent
Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago issued Mission Orders to the
Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID) to apprehended petitioners
at their residences. The Operation Report read that Andrew Harvey was
found together with two young boys. Richard Sherman was found with two
naked boys inside his room. While Van Den Elshout in the after Mission
Report read that two children of ages 14 and 16 has been under his care and
subjects confirmed being live-in for sometime now.
Seized during the petitioners apprehension were rolls of photo negatives and
photos of suspected child prostitutes shown in scandalous poses as well as
boys and girls engaged in sex. Posters and other literature advertising the
child prostitutes were also found.
Petitioners were among the 22 suspected alien pedophiles. They were
apprehended 17 February1988 after close surveillance for 3 month of the CID
in Pagsanjan, Laguna. 17 of the arrested aliens opted for self-deportation. One
released for lack of evidence, another charged not for pedophile but working
with NO VISA, the 3 petitioners chose to face deportation proceedings. On 4
March1988, deportation proceedings were instituted against aliens for being
undesirable aliens under Sec.69 of Revised Administrative Code.
Warrants of Arrest were issued 7March1988 against petitioners for violation of
Sec37, 45 and 46 of Immigration Act and sec69 of Revised Administrative
Code. Trial by the Board of Special Inquiry III commenced the same date.
Petition for bail was filed 11March 1988 but was not granted by the
Commissioner of Immigration. 4 April1988 Petitioners filed a petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus. The court heard the case on oral argument on 20 April 1988. aliens shall be arrested and deported upon warrant of the Commissioner of
Issues:
(1) Whether or Not the Commissioner has the power to arrest and detain
petitioners pending determination of existence of probable cause.
(2) Whether or Not there was unreasonable searches and seizures by CID
(3) Whether or Not the writ of Habeas Corpus may be granted to petitioners.
Held: While pedophilia is not a crime under the Revised Penal Code, it
violates the declared policy of the state to promote and protect the physical,
moral, spiritual and social well being of the youth. The arrest of petitioners was
based on the probable cause determined after close surveillance of 3 months.
The existence of probable cause justified the arrest and seizure of articles
linked to the offense. The articles were seized as an incident to a lawful arrest;
therefore the articles are admissible evidences (Rule 126, Section12 of Rules
on Criminal Procedure).
The rule that search and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant of
arrest is not an absolute rule. There are at least three exceptions to this rule.
1.) Search is incidental to the arrest. 2.) Search in a moving vehicle. 3.)
Seizure of evidence in plain view. In view of the foregoing, the search done
was incidental to the arrest.
The filing of the petitioners for bail is considered as a waiver of any irregularity
attending their arrest and estops them from questioning its validity.
Furthermore, the deportation charges and the hearing presently conducted by
the Board of Special Inquiry made their detention legal. It is a fundamental rule
that habeas corpus will not be granted when confinement is or has become
legal, although such confinement was illegal at the beginning.
The deportation charges instituted by the Commissioner of Immigration are in
accordance with Sec37 (a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 in relation
to sec69 of the Revised Administrative code. Section 37 (a) provides that
Immigration and Deportation after a determination by the Board of
Commissioners of the existence of a ground for deportation against them.
Deportation proceedings are administrative in character and never construed
as a punishment but a preventive measure. Therefore, it need not be
conducted strictly in accordance with ordinary Court proceedings. What is
essential is that there should be a specific charge against the alien intended to
be arrested and deported. A fair hearing must also be conducted with
assistance of a counsel if desired.
Lastly, the power to deport aliens is an act of the State and done under the
authority of the sovereign power. It a police measure against the undesirable
aliens whose continued presence in the country is found to be injurious to the
public good and tranquility of the people.