View full case

RAYMOND MICHAEL JACKSON v. FLORITO S. MACALINO

FACTS:

Petitioner Raymond M. Jackson, an American citizen, was arrested and detained based on two search warrants issued for violation of Article 176 of the Revised Penal Code. During the searches, two U.S. passports issued under different names were seized from the petitioner. The U.S. Vice Consul advised the Department of Justice that the passports had been cancelled, and summary deportation proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. He also filed a motion for reconsideration with the CID to reconsider the deportation order, but it was denied. The petitioner filed a petition to lift the summary order of deportation, which was still pending resolution. A certification was later issued stating that the passports had been cancelled due to discrepancies in the photographs. Based on this certification, a mission order for the petitioner's arrest was issued by the CID.

The petitioner was arrested and detained by P/C Inspector Mejia and filed a petition for habeas corpus with the court, claiming that his arrest and detention were illegal. The respondents, Commissioner of the CID and John Doe and Jane Doe, argued that the petitioner's arrest and detention were based on a summary deportation order and a hold departure order. The RTC dismissed the petitioner's petition, stating that it was premature and that he was validly detained based on the order of deportation.

The petitioner argues that the CID cannot issue warrants of arrest and that even if it can, it should only be for enforcing a final order of deportation, which he claims does not exist in his case. He also alleges that his right to due process was violated. The respondents argue that the CID is authorized to issue warrants of arrest for aliens and that the petitioner's arrest was based on a final and executory order of deportation. The court ultimately dismissed the petitioner's petition.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the petitioner's detention is illegal.

  2. Whether or not the petitioner's motion for reconsideration waived his right to question the lack of due process.

  3. Whether or not the petitioner's petition for habeas corpus is appropriate.

  4. Whether the petitioner's arrest and detention are in accord with Section 45(d) in relation to Section 37(a)(9) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940.

  5. Whether the petitioner was informed of the specific grounds for deportation and given a hearing as prescribed in Section 37(c) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940.

  6. Whether there is a serious doubt on the allegations and authenticity of the documents attached in the motion for reconsideration.

  7. Whether the petitioner's offer to post a bail bond for his provisional release indicates his acceptance of the jurisdiction of the CID.

  8. Whether the petitioner's petition for habeas corpus is premature.

RULING:

  1. The petition is dismissed.

  2. The Court ruled that the petitioner's arrest and detention are in accord with Section 45(d) in relation to Section 37(a)(9) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940. The certification from the Vice Consul of the United States, affirming that the passports of the petitioner were genuine documents altered and photosubstituted, provided sufficient grounds for the arrest and deportation of the petitioner.

  3. The Court also ruled that the petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the charges against him and insist on being deprived of his right to due process. The petitioner had filed a motion for reconsideration of the deportation order, which implies that he was aware of the specific grounds for deportation. The Court further found that the petitioner did not rebut the claim that his passport was tampered with and cancelled. Therefore, the petitioner's argument that he was not informed of the charges against him was deemed without merit.

  4. The court finds that there is a serious doubt on the allegations and authenticity of the documents attached in the motion for reconsideration. Thus, the motion should be denied.

  5. The petitioner's offer to post a bail bond for his provisional release indicates his acceptance of the jurisdiction of the CID.

  6. The petitioner's petition for habeas corpus is premature as it was filed before the resolution of his petition to lift the order of deportation.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention. Its ultimate purpose is to relieve a person from unlawful restraint.

  • Even if the arrest of a person is illegal, supervening events may bar his release or discharge from custody.

  • The burden of proving illegal restraint rests with the petitioner.

  • The return of the writ shall be considered prima facie evidence of the cause of restraint when the detained person is in custody under a warrant of commitment in pursuance of law.

  • If a foreign embassy cancels the passport of an alien, or does not reissue a valid passport to him, the alien loses the privilege to remain in the country.

  • Official documents from a foreign embassy attesting to the cancellation of passports that were tampered with are sufficient grounds for the arrest and deportation of aliens in the Philippines.

  • Being out of the territory of one's country does not relieve an individual of their allegiance to their government, and the government may request their return under certain conditions.

  • An alien cannot be deported without being informed of the specific grounds for deportation and without being given a hearing as prescribed by the Commissioner of Immigration.

  • Filing a motion for reconsideration of a deportation order implies that the petitioner was informed of the charges against them and has been afforded due process.

  • Courts may dismiss a motion if there is a serious doubt on the allegations and authenticity of the documents attached.

  • Offerring to post a bail bond can be seen as an admission of being under custody and accepting the jurisdiction of a certain agency.

  • A petition for habeas corpus may be premature if filed before the resolution of a petition seeking a determination of the legality of detention or deportation.