Case Digest (G.R. No. 78596)
Facts:
Lucien Tran Van Nghia v. Hon. Ramon J. Liwag, G.R. No. 78596, July 13, 1989, Supreme Court Third Division, Fernan, C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Lucien Tran Van Nghia, a French national, was admitted to the Philippines on November 1, 1981 as a temporary visitor and on November 16, 1984 his status was changed to that of an immigrant upon his representation that he was financially capable and would invest in the Philippines. In fact, petitioner did not make the promised investment and instead engaged in French tutoring and the practice of acupressure.
On May 28, 1987 respondent Commissioner of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) Ramon J. Liwag received a sworn complaint by one Dionisio G. Cabrera, Jr., allegedly petitioner’s landlord, accusing petitioner of being an undesirable alien. Acting on the complaint, on June 1, 1987 the Commissioner issued a mission order directing a team of seven CID agents “to locate and bring subject to Intelligence Division for proper disposition” and to submit a report. On June 2, 1987 the agents went to petitioner’s Sta. Ana residence to invite him to CID headquarters for status verification; petitioner and a companion locked themselves in a bedroom and refused to talk to the agents.
CID agents then requested assistance from the Western Police District. A physical struggle ensued when petitioner resisted being taken in; both petitioner and the officers were injured, petitioner was subdued and taken to the CID Intelligence Office. A warrant of arrest was issued by the Commissioner on June 2, 1987, but the record did not show that the warrant was served on petitioner prior to his apprehension; the warrant recited alleged misrepresentations about intended investment and his resistance to immigration agents. Because of injuries allegedly sustained during apprehension and at the request of the French consul, petitioner was transferred from CID detention to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) for medical treatment.
On June 10, 1987 petitioner’s counsel filed a petition for habeas corpus to prevent petitioner’s threatened removal from the PGH and to challenge the legality of his detention by the CID. The Solicitor General filed a return; oral argument was heard on June 17, 1987, and memoranda were subsequently filed. While the Court noted precedents (notably Harvey v. Defensor‑Santiago, G.R. No. 82544, June 28, 1988, and older deportation cases) holding that deportation proceedings do not require a judge‑determined probable cause in the same manner as ordinary criminal arrest, it found the circumstances of the capture raised doubts about probable cause because the action stemmed solely from a single sworn complaint and an administrative mission order without prior surveillance or corroboration.
However, subsequent developments made the habeas corpus petition moot or otherwise cured any initial defect: on June 19, 1987 a personal bail bond of P20,000 was posted and approved, and petitioner was released on June 20, 1987 pending administrative proceedings; and formal deportation proceedings had been initiated before the Board of Special Inquiry of the CI...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does petitioner retain a live cause of action for habeas corpus despite his release on bail pending administrative deportation proceedings?
- Was the warrantless arrest and detention of petitioner by the Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation lawful under the Constitution and applicable precedents govern...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)