ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10649 March 1, 1916 - BENITO AFRICA v. KURT W. GRONKE

    034 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 10838 March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 11148 March 1, 1916 - LIM BUN SU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10563 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BONIFACIO

    034 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 11262 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ

    034 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 7676 March 3, 1916 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. ESTEBAN ARCENAS

    034 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10265 March 3, 1916 - EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN v. ISIDORO SANTOS

    034 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10918 March 4, 1916 - WILLIAM FRESSEL ET AL. v. MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & COMPANY

    034 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10971 March 4, 1916 - BEAUMONT & TENNEY v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    034 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 11216 March 6, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    034 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 8473 March 7, 1916 - SANTIAGO YASON v. JULIO MAGSAKAY

    034 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 10437 March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO

    034 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 10729 March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 10793 March 17, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO

    034 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 11196 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO YUMUL

    034 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 11321 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SY BUN KUE

    034 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 10051 March 9, 1916 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.

    034 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11115 March 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE YU TUICO

    034 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10297 March 11, 1916 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

    034 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 8135 March 13, 1916 - FRED J. LEGARE ET AL. v. ANTONIA CUERQUES

    034 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 10449 March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL

    034 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8092 March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL.

    034 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 10578 March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO

    034 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 11000 March 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MENDIETA

    034 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9497 March 15, 1916 - SIMONA GALICIA v. TEODORA NAVARRO

    034 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 11467 March 15, 1916 - NG HIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 10462 March 16, 1916 - ANDREA DUMASUG v. FELIX MODELO

    034 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 9164 March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC

    034 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 10354 March 17, 1916 - FELIPE DORADO v. AGRIPINO VIRIÑA

    034 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 10718 March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER

    034 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 11464 March 17, 1916 - VICTOR BIUNAS v. BENITO MORA

    034 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 8954 March 21, 1916 - DOROTEA CABANG v. MARTIN DELFINADO

    034 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9340 March 21, 1916 - MARGARITO PENALOSA LO INTONG v. ISIDORA JAMITO ET AL.

    034 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 10889 March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ

    034 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 11098 March 21, 1916 - CO PAIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916 - E. MERRITT v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    034 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 8979 March 22, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. PROVICIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA ET AL.

    034 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 10978 March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO

    034 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 11315 March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL

    034 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 8941 March 23, 1916 - GUILLERMO VELOSO v. LORENZO BECERRA

    034 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 9984 March 23, 1916 - PETRONA JAVIER v. LAZARO OSMEÑA

    034 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10769 March 23, 1916 - RAYMUNDO MELLIZA v. F. W. TOWLE

    034 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 11119 March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 8642 March 24, 1916 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. ANTONIO BABASA ET AL.

    034 Phil 354

  • G.R. Nos. 8765 & 10920 March 24, 1916 - PEDRO DIMAGIBA v. ANSELMO DIMAGIBA

    034 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 8806 March 24, 1916 - ALEJANDRO BALDEMOR v. EUSEBIA MALANGYAON

    034 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 9919 March 24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL.

    034 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 9974 March 24, 1916 - CANG YUI v. HENRY GARDENER

    034 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 10560 March 24, 1916 - IN RE: Tan Po Pic v. JUAN L. JAVIER

    034 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 10624 March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 10663 March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11384 March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 10045 March 25, 1916 - PHIL. RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. NOLTING

    034 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10777 March 25, 1916 - ALEJANDRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN

    034 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11157 March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO

    034 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 10510 March 27, 1916 - LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    034 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 10580 March 27, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. MAXIMINO PATERNO

    034 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 11607 March 27, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS

    034 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 9845 March 28, 1916 - J. C. RUYMANN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    034 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 10054 March 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL

    034 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 10264 March 28, 1916 - CHOA TEK HEE v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    034 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 10595 March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL.

    034 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 10810 March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA

    034 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10902 March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA

    034 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 11156 March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO

    034 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 11363 March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 11366 March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY

    034 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9550 March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO.

    034 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 10019 March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO.

    034 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS Ex Rel. MUN. OF CARDONA v. MUN. OF BINANGONAN ET AL.

    034 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10474 March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO

    034 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 10493 March 29, 1916 - FREDERICK L. COHEN v. BENGUET COMMERCIAL CO. (Ltd.)

    034 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 10751 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA CABALLERO Y APARICI

    034 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 10778 March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    034 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 11008 March 29, 1916 - MARIANO REAL ET AL. v. CESAREO MALLARI

    034 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11068 March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT

    034 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 11274 March 29, 1916 - RAFAELA DALMACIO v. ALBERTO BARRETTO

    034 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 11585 March 29, 1916 - PABLO PERLAS v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    034 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 8697 March 30, 1916 - M. GOLDSTEIN v. ALIJANDRO ROCES ET AL.

    034 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 8988 March 30, 1916 - HARTFORD BEAUMONT v. MAURO PRIETO, ET AL.

    041 Phil 670

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 9164   March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC<br /><br />034 Phil 260

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 9164. March 17, 1916. ]

    THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VY BO TEC, Defendant-Appellant.

    Beaumont & Tenney for Appellant.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    ALIENS; CHINESE LABORER; DEPORTATION. — Held: Under the facts stated in the opinion, that the defendant should be deported.


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    The present proceedings were commenced by a preliminary examination on the 7th of April, 1913, in the department of customs. After the close of said preliminary examination the cause was referred to the Court of First Instance. On the 10th of April, 1913, a complaint was presented against the defendant, in which it was alleged that he was a Chinese person, a laborer, and that he had in the year 1908 knowingly, illegally, and wrongfully come from foreign ports into the Philippine Islands, without permission and without authority, contrary to the Chinese Immigration Laws.

    Upon said complaint a warrant of arrest was issued for the defendant and he was taken before the court for trial. During the trial of the cause Exhibit A was presented, which was an application for a Chinese laborer’s certificate, by the defendant. Exhibit A was presented on the 10th of July, 1906. It is admitted that, in accordance with said application, a certificate was issued to him as a Chinese laborer.

    On the 27th of August, 1906 (see Exhibit B), there was issued to the defendant by the department of customs a Chinese laborer’s return certificate which certified that he, a Chinese laborer described in application numbered 535, departed from the port of Manila for the port of Amoy, China, on the 27th of August, 1906, with the intention of returning to the Philippine Islands, via the port of Manila, within twelve months from said date.

    In addition to the foregoing there was also presented Exhibit D which was a transcription of the declaration of the defendant presented during the preliminary examination in the department of customs. By an examination of said exhibit we find many contradictions in the statements of the defendant. In said declaration (Exhibit D), when asked what his business was he said: "Fish store keeper; I used to dry fish." In his application for a Chinese laborer’s certificate he stated that he was engaged in conducting passengers between China and the city of Manila. He further stated that he had been living in Manila all the time; that he had lived in Manila for eight years; that he had a cedula for each year; whereas the record shows that for the years 1909 and 1910 he had purchased two cedulas in the city of Jolo, on the same day. When questioned whether or not he had been in the city of Jolo he at first answered "never." Later he admitted that he had been in Jolo for one year.

    After the issuance of the Chinese laborer’s return certificate above referred to (Exhibit B), the next time it was seen by the authorities was on or about the 20th of December, 1917, when it was presented by one claiming to be the defendant, at the port of Jolo. The authorities at said port, upon an examination of said certificate, discovered that the defendant had not returned within the twelve months fixed in said certificate, and refused him the right to enter. The defendant claims that said return certificate had been lost, and attempted to show that it must have been presented at Jolo by some other person. He claims that he had not left the Philippine Islands under said return certificate.

    During the examination in the Court of First Instance the defendant declared that he had purchased three cedulas at Jolo, in the years 1907, 1908 and 1909. He also testified that he had only been at Jolo for a period of eleven months. He explained that the reason why he had purchased three cedulas was due to the fact that he had not purchased them before.

    It will be remembered that the said return certificate was issued on the 27th of August, 1906, and was presented to the customs authorities at Jolo on the 20th of December, 1907. The defendant testified that he went to Jolo about sixteen months after the said return certificate had been issued to him. It will be noted, that about sixteen months after the month of August, 1906, would be the month of December, 1907. It would seem therefore that the defendant, from his own statement, was at Jolo on or about the time said certificate was there presented after the expiration of twelve months mentioned therein, the holder thereof was not permitted to enter the territory of the United States without having the same extended by some proper authority. We are of the opinion that the proof clearly shows that the defendant is the person who presented the return certificate at Jolo in the month of December, 1907, that he was rightfully denied admission because of the fact that he had not returned within the twelve months after its issuance; that he entered the Islands surreptitiously and without authority, and should therefore be deported. (Tin Lio v. Collector of Customs, 32 Phil. Rep., 32.) In this court the appellant alleges that the lower court committed an error in admitting Exhibit C. Exhibit C is a letter which purports to have been written by the acting collector of customs at the port of Jolo to the Insular Collector of Customs at Manila. By said letter it appears that the acting collector of customs at Jolo had sent to the Insular Collector of Customs at Manila a return certificate No. 3288 which was, in fact, the return certificate issued to the defendant on the 27th of August, 1906 (Exhibit B). Exhibit C contains no information of importance further than the fact that it shows how the said certificate reached the hands of the Collector of Customs at Manila. The fact that the said return certificate was received by the Collector of Customs at Manila is also established by the declaration of one of the witnesses. Exhibit C therefore may be disregarded so far as it constitutes proof of that fact. Exhibit C further states that the said certificate had been presented by the holder at Jolo on the 20th of December, 1907. The defendant claims that he lost his certificate some months after it had been issued to him. He does not claim however that he reported that fact to the department of customs. At the time he obtained said return certificate he deposited in the department of customs his Chinese laborer’s certificate. He admitted that he had never applied to the Collector of Customs for the purpose of securing the return of his "laborer’s certificate." Taking into consideration that the defendant was at Jolo, according to his own admission, within the time or about the time said return certificate was presented to the authorities there, we are not inclined to believe his statement that he had lost his certificate; but do believe, taking into consideration the many contradictions in his statement, that he himself presented said certificate to the collector of customs at Jolo and was denied admission because the same had not been presented within twelve months from the date of its issuance, and that he did enter the Philippine Islands surreptitiously, without permission and without authority. The Honorable A. S. Crossfield, who tried the cause in the court below, and who heard and saw the witnesses, reached the conclusion that the defendant presented the certificate at Jolo and, having been refused landing, succeeded in landing without permission. We are of the opinion that the record contains sufficient proof to show that the defendant is wrongfully within the Philippine Islands, without the required certificate, without taking into consideration any of the facts stated in Exhibit C. Had the defendant attempted to return to the Philippine Islands through the port of Manila, as was required by said return certificate, his original laborer’s certificate would have been returned to him, and he would then have been possessed of evidence which would have been sufficient to justify his continuance in the Philippine Islands. Not having returned to the Philippine Islands through the port of Manila, or through any other port within twelve months from the date of the issuance of said return certificate, he was rightfully denied admission, and his entrance without the proper permission given by the proper authorities was illegal and subjects him to deportation. We are fully convinced that the defendant is within the Philippine Islands without authority and that the judgment of the lower court ordering him to be deported should be and is hereby affirmed with costs. So ordered.

    Torres, Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 9164   March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC<br /><br />034 Phil 260




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED