G.R. No. 29710. February 23, 1929
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. KOH TAN ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
JOHNSON, J.:
an amended information against the above-named defendants, charging
them with a violation of section 5 in connection with section 4 of Act
No. 702, and in connection with the Act of Congress of the United
States, approved April 29,1902, as amended. The information alleged:
“That on or about the year 1916 and continuously up
to the present time, in the municipal district of Sitankaa, Province of
Sulu, P. I., the herein defendants, being Chinese laborers did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and illegally and without the previous
consent of the proper authorities, come to the Philippine Islands and
remain in the said municipal district of Sitankai without registration
or landing certificates, and the two of the accused, Kong Loon Lui, and
Sue Hong, being laborers before and merchants now, remained in the said
municipal district without first securing the said landing and
registration certificates within the period prescribed by law.“All contrary to law.”
To said information the defendants demurred on the following grounds: (a) That the court did not have jurisdiction of the case; (b) that the information did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and (c)
that the information is ambiguous, uncertain and charges more than one
violation of the law. The demurrer was overruled, upon the ground that
during the entire existence of said Act No. 702 the Supreme Court of
the Philippine Islands has recognized the jurisdiction of the Courts of
First Instance in many analogous cases.
Upon said information the defendants were arraigned, tried, found
guilty of the acts therein described, and sentenced by the Honorable A.
Horrilleno, judge, to be deported to China by the proper authorities
and to pay the costs. From that sentence the defendants appealed.
Counsel for appellants now contend:
(1) That the lower court committed an error in overruling their demurrer; and
(2)
That the lower court committed an error in holding that the appellants
violated Act No. 702 and in sentencing them to be deported.
A careful examination of the evidence shows that the defendants are
Chinese laborers who came to the Philippine Islands clandestinely; that
they arrived at the municipal district of Sitankai, Province of Sulu,
between the years 1916 and 1923; and that when the customs inspector
asked for the certificates required by Act No. 702, they admitted that
they had no such certificates.
Only four of the nine defendants testified during the trial. Two of
them attempted to show that they were born in the Philippine Islands
and that their mothers were Moras. They presented, however, no proof to
corroborate their testimony. The other two defendants attempted to show
that they were merchants. In cross-examination, however, they admitted
that they came to the Philippine Islands as laborers and that after a
few years they went into business. The remaining five defendants
presented
no defense whatsoever.
The law applicable to the foregoing facts is found in section 5 in
relation with section 4 of Act No. 702. Said sections are as follows:
“SEC. 5. Every Chinese person having a right to be
and remain in the Philippine Islands shall obtain the certificate of
registration specified in section three of this Act as evidence of such
right and shall pay the fee and furnish his photograph in triplicate as
in said section prescribed; and every Chinese person found without such
certificate within the Philippine Islands after the expiration of the
time limited by law for registration shall be presumed, in the absence
of satisfactory proof to the contrary, to be a Chinese laborer and
shall be subject to deportation as provided in section four of this
Act. Every Chinese person shall, on demand of any customs official,
police, constabulary, or other peace officer exhibit his certificate,
and in his refusal to do so may be arrested and tried as provided in
section four of this Act.“SEC 4. Any Chinese laborer within
the limits of the Philippine Islands who shall neglect, fail, or refuse
to obtain within the time prescribed by section four of the Act of
Congress of the United States referred to in. section one of this Act,
the certificate of registration by this Act provided to be issued, and
who shall be found within the Philippine Islands without such
certificate of registration after such time has elapsed, may be
arrested upon warrant issued by the Court of First Instance of the
province or by the justice’s court of the municipality returnable
before said Court of First Instance, by any customs official, police,
constabulary, or other peace officer of the Philippine Islands and
brought before any judge of a Court of First Instance in the Islands,
whose duty it shall be to order that such Chinese laborer be deported
from the Philippine Islands, either to China or the country from whence
he came, etc.” (Vol. II, P. L., pp. 364, 365.)
Under the provisions of section 5 of Act No. 702 above quoted, the
defendants, being Chinese persons without certificates of registration,
are presumed to be Chinese laborers and are subject to deportation as
provided in section 4 of said Act No, 702. Said section 4 provides for
the arrest of Chinese persons residing in the Philippine Islands
without having complied with the provisions of Act No. 702.
It also provides for their trial before the Court of First Instance,
“whose duty it shall be to order that such Chinese laborer be deported
from the Philippine Islands, either to China or the country from whence
he came.”
Summarizing the facts in the present case and the law thereto
applicable, it may be stated: The defendants are Chinese laborers; they
were found in the Philippine Islands without certificates of
registration, in violation of section 5 in relation with section 4 of
Act No. 702. They were brought before the Court of First Instance,
tried and found guilty of said violation of Act No. 702. The penalty
provided in said Act is deportation, and they were sentenced to be
deported. Therefore, the sentence of the lower court, ordering the
defendants to be deported from the Philippine Islands, is in accordance
with the facts and the law.
Counsel for appellants vigorously contends that the Court of First
Instance did not have jurisdiction of the case and that it falls within
the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs. In answer to this contention
it may be said that sections 4 and 5 of Act No. 702 above quoted,
expressly confer upon the Courts of First Instance jurisdiction of
cases arising from a violation of the provisions of said sections.
Accordingly, all prosecutions for a violation of Act No. 702 have
heretofore been brought before the Courts of First Instance, and the
Supreme Court has never questioned the jurisdiction of said courts, as
shown by the following cases: (U. S. vs. Sy Quiat, 12 Phil, 676; U. S. vs: Lim Co, 12 Phil., 703; U. S. vs. Chan Sam, 17 Phil., 448; U. S. vs. Soy Chuy, 33 Phil, 545; U. S. vs. Ang, 34 Phil, 44; U. S. vs. Lui Pak Chuen, 42 Phil, 31.)
Only in one case (U. S. vs. Vy Bo Tec, 34 Phil., 260) did
we find that the Bureau of Customs took jurisdiction. But later, said
bureau, perhaps realizing its mistake, turned the case over to the
Court of First Instance.
The present case differs from a case where Chinese laborers attempt
to enter the Philippine Islands and are detained by the department of
customs. When Chinese laborers are found within the territory after the
adoption of said Act No. 702; without the required certificate, the
Courts of First Instance have jurisdiction. Where, however, Chinese
laborers attempt to enter the territory of the Philippine Islands and
are detained by the department of customs, their remedy is a very
different one from the remedy provided for under said Act No. 702. In
cases where laborers are found within the Philippine Islands without
the required certificate, the law expressly provides that the Courts of
First Instance shall have jurisdiction to try them and, if found
guilty, to order their deportation. In cases where Chinese laborers
attempt to enter the Philippine Islands without the required
certificate and are detained by the department of customs and their
entrance is refused, their remedy, according to long years of practice,
is to sue out a writ of habeas corpus and
thus test their
right to enter the Philippine Islands. The question, in the first case
is, whether they are properly within the Philippine Islands; in the
second case the question is, whether they have a right to enter the
Philippine Islands.
Therefore, there is absolutely no ground for the contention that the
Court of First Instance did not have jurisdiction of the case.
Counsel also contends that Act No. 702 relates exclusively to
Chinese persons found in the Philippine Islands at the time of the
passage of said Act on March 27,1903, and that it has no application in
the case of the appellants, who came to the Islands between the years
1916 and 1923. We have carefully examined said Act, and have failed to
find therein any provision supporting counsel’s contention. On the
contrary, the provisions of section 5 of said
Act are sufficiently broad, and extend to all cases of Chinese
persons found in the Philippine Islands without certificates of
registration, irrespective of the time of their entrance. It was not
contemplated by the lawmakers, that all Chinese laborers who should,
for any reason, fail to secure the required certificate, were thereby
permitted to remain in the Philippine Islands.
The last contention of the appellants’ counsel is, that there is no
proof in the record, showing that the appellants are Chinese persons or
of Chinese descent. This contention is not supported by the record. The
testimony of customs inspector MacLand and the opinion of the trial
judge as to the nationality of the appellants, after having personally
observed their appearance, dress, language, manners and racial
characteristics—are sufficient proof that they are Chinese.
Furthermore, under section 5 of Act No. 702, it being established that
the appellants are Chinese persons, they are presumed to be Chinese
laborers, and the burden of proof is upon them to show that they are
not. (U. S, vs. Sy Quiat, 12 Phil., 676; U. S. vs. Lim Co, 12 Phil., 703.)
In view of all of the foregoing, we are of the opinion, that the
sentence appealed from is in accordance with the facts and the law. The
same is, therefore, hereby affirmed, with costs. It is so ordered.
Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.