Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 78596 July 13, 1989
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF !UCIEN TRAN
"AN NGHIA, petitioner,
vs.
HON. RAMON J. !I#AG, A$%&'( Co))&**&o'+, o- %.+ Co))&**&o' o'
I))&(,/%&o' /'0 1+2o,%/%&o' 3CI14 /'0 JOHN 1OES, /(+'%* o- %.+ CI1,
respondents.
Emmanuel O. Sales for petitioner.

FERNAN, C.J.
This is a petition for the issuance of a rit of habeas corpus filed b! "ucien Tran Van
N#hia alle#in# that he as arrested ithout arrant and deprived of his libert! b!
respondent $o%%issioner of I%%i#ration and Deportation and his a#ents.
Petitioner "ucien Tran Van N#hia is a &rench national ith te%porar! address in Sta.
'na, Manila. Ori#inall! ad%itted to the Philippines on Nove%ber (, ()*( as a
te%porar! visitor, his status as chan#ed to that of an i%%i#rant on Nove%ber (+,
()*, based on his representation that he is financiall! capable and ill invest in the
Philippines. To date, hoever, petitioner has not %ade an! invest%ent and has
en#a#ed onl! in &rench tutorin# and practice of acupressure.
On Ma! -*, ()*., respondent $ID $o%%issioner Ra%on /. "ia# received a sorn
co%plaint fro% a certain Dionisio 0. $abrera, /r., alle#edl! petitioner1s landlord,
accusin# petitioner of bein# an undesirable alien for 2co%%ittin# acts ini%ical to public
safet! and pro#ress.2
1
'ctin# thereon, respondent $o%%issioner "ia# issued on /une (, ()*. a %ission
order to a tea% of seven 3.4 $ID a#ents for the% 2to locate and brin# sub5ect to
Intelli#ence Division for proper disposition2 and 2sub%it report.2
5

On /une -, ()*., the afore%entioned $ID a#ents ent to petitioner1s residence in Sta.
'na to invite the latter to the $ID head6uarters for verification of his status but
petitioner and his then lad! co%panion reportedl! loc7ed the%selves inside their
bedroo% and refused to tal7 to the a#ents.
The i%%i#ration a#ents then sou#ht the assistance of %e%bers of the 8estern Police
District. Once a#ain petitioner ada%antl! refused to be ta7en in and in the ensuin#
stru##le, both petitioner and the la%en ere in5ured. &inall!, petitioner as subdued
and i%%ediatel! ta7en to the $ID Intelli#ence Office.
' arrant of arrest as issued b! respondent $o%%issioner on /une -, ()*. but there
is nothin# in the records to convince this $ourt that said arrant as served on
petitioner prior to his apprehension. Said arrant as based on the folloin# acts and
circu%stances9
That he applied for and as #ranted per%anent status on his
representation that he is financiall! capable of investin# in the
Philippines but he %ade no invest%ents but en#a#ed in tutorin# in
&rench and practice of acupressure: that he ilfull! refused to
reco#ni;e the authorit! of i%%i#ration a#ents ho ere sent to invite
hi% to $ID for verification of his status and ph!sicall! resisted bein#
ta7en in b! the a#ents resultin# in ph!sical in5uries to hi%self and the
a#ents: that he has thereb! %ade hi%self an undesirable alien
sub5ect to deportation.
3

<! reason of the in5uries he alle#edl! sustained hen he as 2brutall! sei;ed2 b! the
$ID a#ents, petitioner, upon re6uest of the &rench consul, as transferred fro% his
detention cell at the i%%i#ration office to the Philippine 0eneral Hospital for ur#ent
%edical treat%ent.
On /une (=, ()*., petitioner1s counsel filed the instant petition for habeas corpus to
avert the 2threatened re%oval2 of petitioner fro% P0H and to 6uestion the validit! of
his detention b! respondent $o%%issioner. ' return of the rit as filed b! the
Solicitor 0eneral and the $ourt heard the case on oral ar#u%ent on /une (.,()*..
Thereafter, the parties ere re6uired to sub%it their respective %e%oranda.
The core issue is the le#alit! of the arrest and detention of petitioner b! the
I%%i#ration $o%%issioner preparator! to deportation proceedin#s. Petitioner insists
that respondent official has no poer, authorit! or 5urisdiction to cause his arrest
because under the ()*. $onstitution, it is provided that 2no search arrant or arrant
of arrest shall issue e>cept upon probable cause to be deter%ined personall! b! the
5ud#e after e>a%ination under oath or affir%ation of the co%plainant and the itnesses
he %a! produce ... .2
6

The aforesaid ar#u%ent raised b! petitioner has been resolved in the case of Harvey
vs. Defensor-Santiago, 0.R. No. *-?,,, /une -*, ()**, here the $ourt, throu#h
Mada%e /ustice Melencio@Herrera, said9
The re6uire%ent of probable cause to be deter%ined b! a /ud#e,
does not e>tend to deportation proceedin#s.1 3Morano vs. Vivo,
supra, citin# Tiu $hun Hai vs. $o%%issioner, infra4. There need be
1
no 1truncated1 recourse to both 5udicial and ad%inistrative arrants in
a sin#le deportation proceedin#.
The fore#oin# does not deviate fro% the rulin# in Qua Chee Gan vs.
Deportation oar! 30.R. No. (=-*=, Septe%ber A=,()+A, ) S$R'
-. B()+AC reiterated in Vivo vs. Montesa, supra, that 1under the
e>press ter%s of our $onstitution 3the ()A? $onstitution44, it is
therefore even doubtful hether the arrest of an individual %a! be
ordered b! authorit! other than a 5ud#e if the purpose is %erel! to
deter%ine the e>istence of a probable cause, leadin# to an
ad%inistrative investi#ation.
8hat is essential is that there should be a specific char#e a#ainst
the alien intended to be arrested and deported, that a fair hearin# be
conducted 3Section A. BcC ith the assistance of counsel, if desired,
and that the char#e be substantiated b! co%petent evidence. ... .
The particular circu%stances obtainin# in the case at bar have seriousl! placed on
doubt the le#alit! and propriet! of petitioner1s apprehension b! respondent
$o%%issioner. &or unli7e in the Harve! case here the arrantless capture of to
suspected alien pedophiles as based on probable cause ascertained onl! after close
surveillance for a three@%onth period durin# hich their activities ere %onitored,
herein petitioner as 2invited2 b! a co%bined tea% of $ID a#ents and police officers at
his apart%ent unit on the stren#th of a %ission order issued b! the $o%%issioner on
I%%i#ration based on a sorn co%plaint of a sin#le individual. The essential re6uisite
of probable cause as conspicuousl! absent.
<ut even assu%in# that the arrest of petitioner as not le#al at the be#innin#, certain
events have supervened to render his petition %oot and acade%ic or to otherise cure
hatever defect there as at the inception of his arrest.
&irstl!, petitioner is no lon#er under confine%ent. On /une -=, ()*., petitioner as
released upon the postin# and approval of a personal bailbond on /une (),()*. in the
a%ount of P-=,===.== durin# the pendenc! of the ad%inistrative proceedin#s b! the
$ID or until further orders of the $ourt.
5
The #eneral rule in a nu%ber of cases is that
the release, hether per%anent or te%porar!, of a detained person renders the
petition for habeas corpus %oot and acade%ic, unless there are restraints attached to
his release hich precludes freedo% of action, in hich case the $ourt can still in6uire
into the nature of his involuntar! restraint under the Villavicencio vs. "u7ban rule.
6

In Moncupa vs. Dnrile, supra, the $ourt #ranted the rit of habeas corpus inspite of the
fact that petitioner Moncupa had been te%poraril! released fro% detention on orders of
the defense %inister. In the Moncupa case, it as shon that attached to his dischar#e
as the prohibition to travel, to chan#e his abode and to #rant intervies to %e%bers
of the %ass %edia ithout official per%ission. He as also ordered to report re#ularl!
to the %ilitar! authorities. The $ourt subse6uentl! nullified said conditions and ruled9
Such restrictions li%it the freedo% of %ove%ent of the petitioner. It is
not ph!sical restraint alone hich is in6uired into b! the rit of
habeas corpus. .. .
7
8here a person continues to be unlafull! denied one or %ore of his
constitutional freedo%s, here there is present a denial of due
process, here the restraints are not %erel! involuntar! but appear
to be unnecessar!, and here a deprivation of freedo% ori#inall!
valid has, in the li#ht of subse6uent develop%ents, beco%e arbitrar!,
the person concerned or those appl!in# in his behalf %a! still avail
the%selves of the privile#e of the rit.
8
Petitioner "ucien Tran Van N#hia is not si%ilarl! restrained. The onl! condition in his
bailbond is that ordinaril! found in an! other analo#ous underta7in#, hich is 2to
appear and anser the co%plaint > > >: ill at all ti%es hold hi%self ... a%enable to the
orders and processes of the $ourt: and after conviction, he ill surrender hi%self ... in
e>ecution of such 5ud#%ent ... .2
9

Secondl!, records sho that for%al deportation proceedin#s have been initiated
a#ainst petitioner before the <oard of Special In6uir! of the $ID.
17
The restraint 3if an!4
a#ainst petitioner1s person has therefore beco%e le#al. The rit of habeas corpus has
served its purpose.
11

8HDRD&ORD, the petition is DISMISSDD.
So ordered.
2