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. 11363   March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS<br /><br />034 Phil 493

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 11363. March 28, 1916. ]

    BERNARDO MOLDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS, Defendant-Appellee.

    Beaumont & Tenney for Appellant.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    ALIENS; CHINESE EXCLUSION; DEPORTATION BY ADMINISTRATIVE WARRANT. — It is now definitely established by authority of the Supreme Court of the United States, that if the proper department of the government has found that an alien is unlawfully in territory of the United States, a warrant of deportation can lawfully issue, provided a fair or even summary hearing has been given in ascertaining that fact, if there is any proof tending to sustain the charge. It is not open to the courts to consider either the admissibily or the weight of the evidence, and courts can not interfere if anything was offered which tends, although slightly, sustain the charge, the decision of the proper department being in such cases binding upon the courts.


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    On the 7th day of April, 1915, the plaintiff presented a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila. He alleged that he was being illegally detained and deprived of his liberty by the defendant.

    To said petition the defendant made answer, in which he alleged that the plaintiff is a person of Chinese race who arrived from foreign ports and entered the Philippine Islands on or about the 6th day of November, 1914, unlawfully, and in violation of the Act of Congress of February 20, 1907; that the petitioner is being held by virtue of an administrative warrant issued in accordance with the Act of Congress of February 20, 1907. A copy of said administrative warrant (No. 160), under which the plaintiff was arrested and was being held at the time of the presentation of the petition for the writ of habeas corpus, was as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "To the chief of the secret agents, or to any other officer of the Philippine customs service authorized to make arrests, greeting:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Whereas, it has been shown to the undersigned and the undersigned is satisfied that Bernardo Molden alias, and Faustino Molden alias, are aliens, and that the said Bernardo Molden alias, and Faustino Molden alias, entered the Philippine Islands from foreign ports on November 6, 1914, at the port of Manila, unlawfully and in violation of the Act of Congress approved February 20th, 1907, in that Bernardo Molden alias, and Faustino Molden alias, are Chinese person not entitled to admission into the Philippine Islands, are not natives of the Philippine Islands, as claimed and represented at the time of such entry; and

    "Whereas, since such illegal entry and during all the time that the said Bernardo Molden alias, and Faustino Molden alias have been in the Philippine Islands, they have remained therein in violation of law and especially in violation of the Act of Congress approved February 20, 1907.

    "Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the provisions of the Act of Congress approved February 20, 1907, entitled ’An Act to regulate the immigration of aliens into the United States,’ you are commanded to forthwith apprehend the said Bernardo Molden alias, and Faustino Molden alias, take them into custody and using them before a board of special inquiry sitting at the port of Manila, P. I., for a hearing to enable them to show cause, if any there be, why they should not be deported from the Philippine Islands, in accordance with the terms of said Act of Congress, approved February 20, 1907, as amended by the Act of Congress, approved March 26, 1910.

    "Given under my hand and seal of office at Manila, P. I., this 15th day of April, 1915.

    (Sgd.) "B. HERSTEIN,

    "Insular Collector of Customs."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Later, on the 26th of July, 1915, the petitioner presented a supplementary petition, in which the alleged additional facts to those alleged in the first petition, attempting to show that the Bureau of Customs had secretly and clandestinely and without notice to the detained, made certain investigations relating to the right of the defendant to deport him.

    To said supplementary petition the defendant made a supplementary return, in which he admitted that he had made certain investigations concerning the right of the plaintiff to remain in the Philippine Islands; that after said investigations had been made by the representative of the defendant the cause was brought on for hearing before the board of special inquiry; that during said hearing the said representative of the defendant, Mygatt, testified giving a statement of what he had learned during his official investigation; that during the session of the board of special inquiry on said date (July 15, 1915) the official report of Mygatt, together with the declarations of eleven witnesses, was presented to the board and considered by it in rendering its official decision; that the plaintiff was given an opportunity on said date (July 15, 1915) to produce before the board of special inquiry any additional evidence which he might consider necessary; that additional witnesses were examined in behalf of the plaintiff on said date.

    Later the board of special inquiry, after hearing the evidence adduced before it on the 15th of July 1915, reached the conclusion that the plaintiff was illegally within the Philippine Islands and should be deported upon the ground that he is a Chinese person who entered the Philippine Islands on the 6th day of November, 1914, in violation of the Act of Congress of February 20, 1907.

    On the 21st of July, 1915, the Insular Collector of Customs examined the recommendation of the board of special inquiry and after reviewing the record made by said board and testimony taken before it, as well as the report of the special examiner, Mygatt, decided that the plaintiff, Bernardo Molden, is not the person he represents himself to be, and that he had landed in the Philippine Islands on the 25th of October, 1914, in violation of the Act of Congress of February 20, 1907, and ordered him deported.

    Upon the issue thus presented the cause was submitted to the Honorable Jose C. Abreu, judge, who, after hearing some additional evidence, ordered the record in the case returned to the Insular Collector of Customs of the Philippine Islands, in order that the might take such steps in the premises as he might deem wise and necessary, to the end that the petitioner, Bernardo Molden, might have an opportunity to have a free full and fair hearing.

    From that decision the plaintiff appealed to this court and made the following assignments of error: "First. That the court below erred in failing to find that the proceedings before the immigration officers, not being based on a precedent oath or affirmation, were null and avoid. Second. That the court below erred in refusing to pass upon the merits of the controversy. Third. That the court below erred in remanding the cause to the respondent, for further consideration."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Proceedings for the deportation of Chinamen constitute a civil and not a criminal action. The administrative warrant, upon which Chinamen who have illegally obtained entrance into territory of the United States are held, is not a warrant such as issue in criminal cases. It need not be under oath, when it is issued by the proper authorities. The Act of Congress of the 20th of February, 1907, as well as preceding Acts of Congress, expressly authorize the issuance of such warrants by the proper administrative authorities. That being true, an alien who is unlawfully in the territory of the United States, who gained his entrance therein illegally and clandestinely, can not procure his discharge on a writ of habeas corpus, simply because the original order of his arrest was unauthorized. (Ex parte Chin Him, 227 Fed. Rep., 131.)

    We believe that it is now definitely established by authority of the Supreme Court of the United States in many decisions that if the proper department of the Government has found that an alien is unlawfully in territory of the United States, a warrant of deportation can lawfully issue, provided a fair or even summary hearing has been given in ascertaining that fact, if there is any proof tending to sustain the charge. it is not open to the courts to consider either the admissibility or the weight of the evidence, and courts can not interfere if anything was offered which tends, although slightly, to sustain the charge, the decision of the proper department being, in such cases, binding upon the courts. (Lewis v. Frick, 233 U.S., 291; U.S. v. Petkos, 214 Fed. Rep., 978; Ex parte Chin Him, 227 Fed. Rep., 131.)

    The main contention of the appellant in the present case is that there was no proof in the record, presented during the examination, which showed that he should be deported from the Philippine Islands. The fact is not disputed that upon the recommendation of Gregorio Nieva the petitioner and appellant was admitted into the territory of the United States. It is also admitted that Gregorio Nieva became convinced that a fraud had been perpetrated upon him; that he had been induced to recommend to the Collector of Customs the admission to the territory of the Philippine Islands the petitioner, under the belief that the petitioner was a Filipino boy, of Chinese parents, born in the municipality of Mogpog. The record contains a copy of the proceedings had not only before the Collector of Customs, but in the Court of First Instance as well.

    The record also contains, in addition to the declaration of the petitioner, the declarations of a number of witnesses.

    We have made an examination of such record and find that the following facts are undisputed: First. From the record of the department of customs made at the time the petitioner gained, as it is alleged, his entrance into the Philippine Islands fraudulently, we find the following facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "This case originally came up on December 3, 1913, when the parties were still in China (Faustino and Bernardo); witnesses appeared in this office and were examined by the inspector, who recommended that they be not allowed to depart from China. It was believed that they were fraudulent and on the recommendation of the inspector they were detained in China at that time, by the consul, until the new regulations went into effect. The detained came to Manila in company with his alleged brother, on the 25th of October, 1914, on the steamship Taising, and was finally landed on November 6, 1914, as Bernardo Molden, the son of a Filipina woman, entitled to land as a citizen of the Philippine Islands, claiming that he was born in the town of Mogpog, Island of Marinduque. The witnesses who appeared at that time were Wy Joco, Catalino Josuc, and Gregorio Madala. There was some doubt at that time as to the identity of the detained.

    "Gregorio Nieva, secretary of the Speaker of Philippine Assembly, interested himself in their behalf and wrote a letter stating that he knew the boys (Faustino and Bernardo) and their father; and knew that they were born in Mogpog. Apparently on the strength of this letter the boys were allowed to land.

    "Bernardo Molden, the detained, was registered on November 9, 1914. L.C.R. No. 10020, I.C. No, 12060."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It will be remembered that at the same time the petitioner arrived he was accompanied by his alleged brother (Faustino), both of whom were mentioned in administrative warrant No. 160, and that one of them (Faustino was not present at the hearing which took place upon said administrative warrant No. 160 for the reason that he had escaped or at least could not be found and for that reason the investigation related to Bernardo Molden only.

    Second. That by reason of the fact that the petitioner represented at the time of their alleged fraudulent admission into the Philippine Islands that they were born in Mogpog, in the Island of Marinduque, and were the sons of a Filipina woman, P.G. Mygatt, immigration inspector, went to the municipality of Mogpog, for the purpose of making an investigation. This investigation was made after said administrative warrant No. 160 had been issued. During the examination of the facts stated in said administrative warrant, Mygatt was called as a witness and declared in the present of the accused and of his attorney, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Q. Did you go to Marinduque to investigate the case of Bernardo Molden some time ago? — A. Yes.

    "Q. Will you give the data as near as you can? — A. I made my report to the Collector of Customs when I returned. I arrived in Mogpog on April 22, 1915.

    "Q. What investigation did you make of this case; whom did you see? — A. The investigation was conducted at Mogpog on April 22d and 23d, and it was held in the office of the presidente, at which time I believe there were 11 different witnesses examined, regarding the two boys Faustino and Bernardo Molden. The result of the examination of these several witnesses was that Bernardo Molden, or the boy named Bernardo Molden, was at that time living in Mogpog; that he himself had never been in China. He had a brother by the name of Faustino, who appears to have been taken to China when he was about 3 to 4 years of age and it is reported that he died in China. He never returned to the Philippine Islands. The mother of the Molden boys is living in Mogpog and she appeared and testified as on the witnesses. I took with me the certificates of residence of the two boys who were landed by the board in Manila last November as the Molden boys and the witnesses at Mogpog were shown these certificates of residence. They stated they weren’t the Molden boys who were born in Mogpog. There were several of these witnesses who, when shown these photographs attached to these certificates of residence, stated that they knew these boys as Chinese boys who were brought to Mogpog by the Chino Uy Joco, but weren’t the original Molden boys born in Mogpog. The two witnesses who testified before the board of inquiry at Manila last November, named Gregorio Madla and Catalino Josuc, were called as witnesses at Mogpog and stated that they testified before instructions they had received from the Chino Uy Joco; that they had never seen these boys prior to their coming to Manila and that they expenses to and from Mogpog, and during their stay in Manila, had been paid by the Chino Uy Joco.

    "Q. Did they admit that they had testified falsely before the board? — A. They admitted that they had testified falsely before the board.

    "Question by Mr. RICE:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Q. Did you show these photographs to the mother? — A. The mother Benita Molden, was shown the photographs attached to the two certificates of residence, Nos. 10020 and 10021, and she stated that these weren’t her sons; that she did not know who they were, and that she didn’t know anything about these boys going to Manila.

    "Question by Chinaman NORTHRUP:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Q. Did you see the real son of Benita Molden, Bernardo Molden, who was living in Mogpog? — A. Yes; he was present in the town and was called as a witness. He was also shown these photographs attached to landing certificates of residence already mentioned, and said that he didn’t know them. It appears that this Bernardo Molden goes under the name of Bernardo or Alejandro. The explanation is that at the time of his birth he took the name of his godfather, Alejandro Navares, and that he was baptized under the name of Bernardo Molden. One of the other witnesses called in was the clerk who keeps the church records and he explained it that way; that he was baptized under the name of Bernardo Molden."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Later the petitioner, Bernardo Molden, was recalled as a witness and he admitted that when he traveled on the steamship Carmen he had given his name as "Ng Lun," and not as Bernardo Molden. During the examination he was requested to write his name and he wrote it as follows, all on one line: "Ng Lun," "Bernardo," "Mo Lun."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The record shows that the petitioner is nineteen years of age. It would seem that a young man of that age should have no difficulty in knowing his real name. The fact that he did not, at least casts some suspicion upon his identity.

    While perhaps many of the statements made during the examination of Mygatt were not technically admissible, yet when we taken into consideration the fact that they were presented in the presence of the petitioner and his lawyer, and that no objection was made by either, and that said declarations were presented primarily for the purpose of showing the percentage of the petitioner and the general reputation of that fact in the community in which he claimed he was born and reared, we are of the opinion and so hold that for that purpose they were sufficient proof to justify the conclusion of the department of customs "that the evidence now presented that the detained is not the Bernardo Molden who was born in Mogpog, but that he is a Chinese person who entered the Philippine Islands, October 25, 1914, unlawfully and inviolation of the Act of Congress of February 20, 1907, as stated in the warrant of arrest."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In reaching this conclusion concerning the existence and sufficiency of such proof, we have not take to consideration the affidavits presented not the telegrams and letters of Gregorio Nieva. Said affidavits and letters should not be considered as proof for the reason that the petitioner did not have an opportunity to see or hear said person as a witness. (Chun Tung v. Collector of Customs, R.G. No. 9860, decided October 14, 1914, not published; Loo Sing v. Collector of Customs, 27 Phil. Rep., 491.) The petitioner and his attorney, however, had an opportunity to cross-examine Mygatt and had a right to call witnesses to disprove his statements and his declarations. The petitioner called no witnesses and made no effort to disprove the declarations of Mygatt. He preferred to rely upon a mere technicality rather than to attempt to show, by indisputable proof, that he was the son of a Filipina woman and was born in the municipality of Mogpog. If he was the person he claimed to be, it would have been easy for him to have called his parents and to have his allegations. The burden was upon him to show that he was the person he claimed to be.

    Finding as we do that the department of customs had some proof before it, which justified its conclusions in fact and in law, we are without jurisdiction, in the absence of proof of abuse of authority, to change or modify those conclusions. Therefore we are of the opinion and so declare that the judgment of the Collector of Customs that the petitioner should be deported is hereby affirmed, with costs, and it is hereby ordered and decreed that the judgment of the court a quo be modified and that the record be returned to the court whence it came, with direction that a judgment be entered in accordance herewith. So ordered.

    Torres, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    MORELAND , J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I vote for a denial of the writ on the ground that no error of law or abuse of discretion was shown by the applicant for the writ.

    G.R. No. 11363   March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS<br /><br />034 Phil 493




    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