Harvey Vs Defensor

QUASI-JUDICIAL/ADJUDICATORY (Incidental Powers) RULING+RATIO: YES.
Harvey vs. Defensor-Santiago

No. L-82544. June 28, 1988.* The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure also provide that an arrest without a warrant may be
Ponente: MELENCIO-HERRERA, J. Digest Author: FABI effected by a peace officer or even a private person
(1) when such person has committed, actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
DOCTRINE: Power to deport aliens is an act of state, an act done by or under the authority of offense in his presence; and
the sovereign power; Respondent acted in the interest of the state in instituting deportation (2) when an offense has, in fact, been committed and he has personal knowledge of facts
proceedings against petitioners. indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it (Rule 113, Section 5)
FACTS:  In this case, the arrest of petitioners was based on probable cause determined after
close surveillance for three (3) months during which period their activities were
 Petitioners Harvey and Sherman are both American nationals and Elshout is a Dutch monitored. The existence of probable cause justified the arrest and the seizure of the
citizen all residing at Laguna. photo negatives, photographs and posters without warrant.
 The case stems from the apprehension of petitioners from their residences by agents  Those articles were seized as an incident to a lawful arrest and, are therefore,
of the (CID) by virtue of Mission Orders issued by respondent Commissioner Miriam admissible in evidence.
Defensor Santiago. Petitioners are presently detained at the CID Detention Center.  Even assuming arguendo that the arrest of petitioners was not valid at its inception,
 Seized during petitioners apprehension were negatives and photos of the child the records show that formal deportation charges have been filed against them, as
prostitutes shown in poses and engaged in the sex act. undesirable aliens. Warrants of arrest were issued against them on for violation of
 Operation Report stated the HARVEY was found together with two young boys. Immigration Act and Administrative Code. A hearing is presently being conducted by
SHERMAN was found with two naked boys inside his room. After Mission Report a Board of Special Inquiry. The restraint against their persons, therefore, has
stated that Elshout were living with 2 children ages 14 and 16. become legal.
Petitioners were not “caught in the act” does not make their arrest illegal. Petitioners were
 Deportation proceedings were instituted against petitioners for being undesirable
found with young boys in their respective rooms, the ones with John Sherman being naked.
aliens under Revised Administrative Code.
Under those circumstances the CID agents had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioners
 Warrants of Arrest were issued by respondent against petitioners for violation
had committed “pedophilia” While not a crime under the Revised Penal Code, it is behavior
Immigration Act and Revised Administrative Code.
offensive to public morals and violative of the declared policy of the State to promote and
 Petitioners filed a Petition for Bail which the respondent denied considering the
protect the physical, moral, spiritual, and social well-being of our youth (Article II, Section 13,
certification by the CID physician that petitioners were healthy.
1987 Constitution).
 Petitioners question the validity of their detention.
OTHER DISCUSSIONS:
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
 Probable cause -“such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the
 There is no provision in the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 nor under Section 69
warrant that in themselves are sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely on them
of the Revised Administrative Code, which legally clothes the Commissioner with
any authority to arrest and detain petitioners pending determination of the and act in pursuance thereof.”
existence of a probable cause leading to an administrative investigation.
 Deportation proceedings are administrative in character. An order of deportation is
 Respondent violated Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting never construed as a punishment. It is preventive, not a penal process.
unreasonable searches and seizures since the CID agents were not clothed with
valid Warrants of arrest, search and seizure as required by the said provision.  “The requirement of probable cause, to be determined by a Judge, does not extend
to deportation proceedings.”
 Mere confidential information made to the CID agents and their suspicion of the
activities of petitioners that they are pedophiles, coupled with their association with
 Philippine Immigration Act provides that “any alien under arrest in a deportation
other suspected pedophiles, are not valid legal grounds for their arrest and
proceeding may be released under bond or under such other conditions as may be
detention unless they are caught in the act. They further allege that being a
imposed by the Commissioner of Immigration.” The use of the word “may” in said
pedophile is not punishable by any Philippine Law nor is it a crime to be a pedophile.
provision indicates that the grant of bail is merely permissive and not mandatory on
the part of the Commissioner. The exercise of the power is wholly discretionary.
ISSUE: W/N the petitioners are validly arrested.
1
 As deportation proceedings do not partake of the nature of a criminal action, the
constitutional guarantee to bail may not be invoked by aliens in said proceedings.
 Fact that petitioners were not caught in the act does not make their arrest illegal;
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 our youth.
 Filing by petitioners of a petition to be released on bail should be considered as a

waiver of any irregularity attending their arrest and estops them from questioning
its validity
The deportation charges instituted by respondent Commissioner are in accordance with

Section 37(a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, in relation to Section 69 of the
Revised Administrative Code.
DISPOSITION: Petition is DISMISSED and the Writ of Habeas Corpus is hereby denied.
NOTES: The rule that search and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an
absolute rule. There are at least three exceptions to the rule recognized in this jurisdiction.
These are: (1) search incidental to an arrest, (2) search in a moving vehicle, and (3) seizure of
evidence in plain view. (Manipon, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, 143 SCRA 267.)

Harvey Vs Defensor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Harvey Vs Defensor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Harvey Vs Defensor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

QUASI-JUDICIAL/ADJUDICATORY (Incidental Powers) RULING+RATIO: YES.

Harvey vs. Defensor-Santiago

 Filing by petitioners of a petition to be released on bail should be considered as a

The deportation charges instituted by respondent Commissioner are in accordance with

You might also like