ICE repatriates Saluta from Guam to the Philippines

Noel Sacramento Saluta failed to appear at his Aug. 16, 2011, sentencing in the Superior Court because Immigration and Customs Enforcement took him to Guam and repatriated him “under escort” to the Philippines on Aug. 17, according to court documents.

Saluta’s counsel, assistant public defender Douglas Hartig, recently submitted to the Superior Court letters from Philippine Consul General Medardo Macaraig and ICE supervisory detention and deportation officer Vida A. Leon Guerrero that confirmed Saluta’s deportation to the Philippines.

Hartig attached the letters in Saluta’s motion to return the latter’s passport and the $525 cash posted for his release to his wife.

Upon Macaraig’s inquiry on Saluta’s whereabouts, Leon Guerrero informed him on Aug. 18 that Saluta was “repatriated under escort” from Guam to the Philippines aboard Continental flight 191 at 8:10am on Aug. 17. Macaraig then immediately informed Hartig about Saluta’s whereabouts.

In May, a Superior Court jury found Saluta guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon charges for chasing a man with a knife. Presiding Judge Robert C. Naraja, who decided on the misdemeanor offense, found Saluta guilty of disturbing the peace.

In Saluta’s motion to exonerate bail, Hartig said the defendant’s wife posted bail on Oct. 5, 2010, after borrowing $525 in order to secure his release from jail. Saluta’s passport was also surrendered to the court. Hartig said that Saluta fully complied with all bail conditions.

Hartig said the CNMI government has made no motion for forfeiture of the bail. “There is nothing before the court to cause it to not return the bail and passport as posted,” Hartig said.

The lawyer said that Saluta missed just one court appearance because federal authorities had detained him. Prior to that, Saluta appeared as ordered six times before trial and each day of trial, Hartig said.

Even if the CNMI government were to move for forfeiture, Hartig said the motion should be denied, or at least any forfeiture should be set aside and the bail and passport returned.

Hartig said in this case, Saluta’s failure to appear in court was not willful and so justice mandates that any forfeiture be set aside.

Citing Smaldone v. U.S., Hartig said the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals had determined it to be an abuse of discretion not to remit bail to a defendant who missed a trial date due to a medical condition that required immediate surgery.

In that case, Hartig said, the defendant could have risked health and life to attend court if he so chose.

In Saluta’s case, Hartig said his client was being physically held by federal authorities.

Hartig said Smaldone chose not to go to court to save his health, while Saluta did not choose not to go to court as he was forcibly prevented from attending.

“The fact that Mr. Saluta was held and physically prevented for attending court does the same,” the lawyer pointed out.

Hartig said it seems clear that the government tried to facilitate Saluta’s non-appearance by trying to expedite his removal.

The Office of the Attorney General had opposed Saluta’s motion to exonerate bail and further moved the court for an order forfeiting the $525 bail.

Chief Prosecutor Michael Ernest said the court should deny the motion for exoneration of bail because Saluta is presently a fugitive from justice and that the Office of Public Defender appears to be filing a motion on behalf of the surety, and not its client.

Ernest said because Saluta has failed to appear, and is currently a fugitive from justice, he should be stopped from arguing for the exoneration of bail or against forfeiture of bail.

As a fugitive from justice, Ernest said, Saluta should not seek relief from the judicial system whose authorities he evades.

Ernest said Mrs. Saluta assumed the risk her husband would be deported and was presumably familiar with his immigration status.

“There is absolutely nothing in the record to suggest she did anything to prevent Saluta’s removal or bring him back to the CNMI, and there is nothing on the record to suggest Saluta has attempted to return for sentencing,” the chief prosecutor said.

Ernest said public policy dictates that those awaiting deportation know that bail won’t always be returned.

Naraja heard the motion on Tuesday. He asked the parties to submit supplemental pleadings and continued the hearing to Oct. 27.

Saluta attracted the public’s attention after he and his wife brought their five children-then ages 7, 6, 4, 2, and a 6-month-old baby-to the Susupe Beach Park stage on Aug. 24, 2010, after their six-month housing aid program benefits expired.

Saluta’s removal has left his wife alone to take care of their children. It was not clear whether Mrs. Saluta has a job now.