THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. QUAN KANG, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal taken by the
accused-appellant Quan Kang from the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of the 26th Judicial District, finding him guilty of violating
Act No. 702 of the Philippine Commission, having been found, according
to the information, in the municipality of Mati, Province of Davao,
Philippines, without the corresponding certificate of registration.

The evidence presented by the prosecution at the trial does not
show preponderantly that the herein accused- appellant was a Chinese
laborer when he first came to the Philippines. On the other hand, the
uncontradicted evidence presented by the accused shows that said
accused was born in Canton, China, of Chinese-Filipino parents named
Antonio Juan and Maria Lopez, natives of Manila. He first came to the
Philippines with his father when he was only six years of age, residing
at Santo Cristo Street, Manila, where his father had a store of sundry
goods, commonly known as a “sari-sari” store. After his father’s death,
the herein accused-appellant continued to manage said store until the
year 1911 when he went to Davao to establish himself in business
opening stores first in the capital and later in the municipalities of
Manay and Mati being still so engaged in the latter municipality. He
never engaged in manual labor characteristic of laborers and wage
earners. The fact that he did not register nor obtain a certificate of
registration was due to his belief that he was not obliged to comply
with the provisions of Act No. 702 of the Philippine Commission, being
a merchant and the son of Chinese-Filipino parents.

In finding the accused guilty of violating Act No. 702, the lower
court based its opinion upon the fact that said accused, upon
arraignment, pleaded guilty and admitted being a Chinese.

Section 5 of Act No. 702 provides, among other things, that “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 4 of this Act.” The presumption of
being a Chinese laborer arising from the lack of certificate of
registration, established by said section 5 of Act No. 702, is a
disputable presumption and, according to said legal provision itself,
yields to satisfactory proof to the contrary. This presumption has been
destroyed by the evidence adduced by the accused-appellant at the trial
to the effect that he has always engaged in commerce from the time he
continued his father’s business upon the latter’s death. Consequently,
as the herein accused-appellant does not have the status of Chinese
laborer, the provisions of section 4 of Act No. 702, which he was found
guilty of violating, are not applicable to him.

The fact that he pleaded guilty upon arraignment is not equivalent
to a confession that he is a Chinese laborer without a certificate of
registration because it is not alleged in the information that he is a
Chinese laborer but simply a “Chinese.” Consequently, upon pleading
guilty he only admitted the fact that he was Chinese and that he did
not have the corresponding certificate of registration, and this is
how he understood it. The fact that a person is Chinese and has no
certificate of registration does hot necessarily imply that he is a
laborer.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment is reversed and the accused is
acquitted of the information which is dismissed, with the costs de oficio. So ordered.

Avancena, C. J., Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.