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. 11366   March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY<br /><br />034 Phil 503

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 11366. March 28, 1916. ]

    THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Petitioner, v. GOERGE R. HARVEY, judge of First Instance of Manila, and CO PUY, Respondents.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Petitioner.

    Judge Harvey in his own behalf.

    Beaumont & Tenney for other Respondent.

    SYLLABUS


    ALIENS; CHINESE EXCLUSION LAWS; RIGHT TO BAIL PENDING; HABEAS CORPUS. — A Chinese alien who has been denied the right to enter territory of the United States by the proper authorities is not entitled to bail pending habeas corpus proceedings. Habeas corpus proceedings must be heard and determined promptly without unnecessary delay.


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    This is an original for the writ of certiorari, presented in this court by the Attorney-General on behalf of the Insular Collector of Customs. The important facts as gathered from the petition, are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    First. That on or about the 6th of July, 1915, the said of Co Puy presented a petition in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila for the writ of habeas corpus against the Insular Collector of Customs.

    Second. That on or about the 4th of October, 1915, the petition for the writ of habeas corpus was amended.

    Third. That on or about the 4th of October, 1915, the Insular Collector of Customs filed his answer to the petition for the writ of habeas corpus, in which, among other things, he alleged that —

    "On August 18, 1915, and September 14, 1915, the board of special inquiry, in accordance with an order of this court of July 9, 1915, conducted a rehearing, and again investigated the question of petitioner’s right to enter the Philippine Islands, and on September 16, 1915, rendered a decision finding that Co Puy was the minor son of a Filipina and allowed him to enter; but finding that Co Puy is a full blooded Chinese person, a subject of the Republic of China, presenting no evidence showing him to be a member of any of the classes privileged to enter the Philippine Islands."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Fourth. Upon the issue presented by the petition said quoted answer, the cause was set down for trial in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila on the 22d of October, 1915. The case was heard by the Honorable George R. Harvey, who, after hearing the respective parties, reached the conclusion that "There is no satisfactory evidence in this case upon which the court may properly base a finding or conclusion that the petitioner is not a full-blooded Chinaman," dismissed the petition for the writ of habeas corpus and remanded the petitioner, Co Puy, to the custody of the Insular Collector of Customs for deportation.

    Fifth. On the 30th of October, 1915, and within twenty-four hours after the rendition of the judgment, an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands.

    Sixth. On the 9th of November, 1915, the appellant, Co Puy, presented a motion in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, praying that he be permitted to file a personal bond for his provisional liberty, pending his appeal.

    Seventh. On the same day (the 9th of November, 1915) the Honorable George R. Harvey, judge, granted the said ex parte motion for bail, fixing the amount at P1,000.

    Upon the foregoing facts the Insular Collector of Customs prays that the writ of certiorari be issued and that this court make an order reversing the action of the lower court and directing that Co Puy be returned to the custody and control of the Insular Collector of Customs, there to remain until such time as it may be determined that such custody is illegal and unwarranted, or until the determination of the aforementioned appeal.

    To the foregoing petition the Honorable George R. Harvey answered, in which answer he briefly set up the facts as they occurred in the lower court. The defendant, Co Puy, presents a demurrer to the petition.

    The question presented by the pleadings is whether or not a Chinese alien who is seeking admission into territory of the Philippine Islands under the Chinese exclusion laws, entitled to bail during the pendency of his appeal after it has been decided that he is not entitled to enter the territory of the United States.

    Upon that question we have an express provision of law. Section 5 of the Act of Congress of May 5, 1892, (27 Statutes at Large, page 25) provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "After the passage of this Act on an application to any judge or court of the United States in the first instance for a writ of habeas corpus, by a Chines person seeking to land in the United States, to whom that privilege has been denied, no bail shall be allowed, and such application shall be heard and determined promptly without unnecessary delay."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It would seem clear, therefore, that bail is prohibited to Chines persons seeking to land in the United States to whom that privilege has been denied. If the law prohibits bail, then the courts are without jurisdiction to grant it.

    It would seem to be unnecessary to decide the question whether or not the court is expressly forbidden by statute from releasing on bail pending appeal, where the relator is a Chinese immigrant. Concededly there is such a prohibition where the application is being considered by the court in the first instance. That being so, it would be a singular bail after the court has decided that he shall not be permitted to enter the country, when the statutes require that he shall not be released on bail before the court has so decided and when there is still a possibility that its decision might be favorable to him. (In re Chin Yuen Sing, 65 Fed. Rep., 788; In re Ah Moy, 21 Fed. Rep., 808; U.S. v. Sisson, 220 Fed. Rep., 538.) The writ of habeas corpus which was the custody of the court. The courts can not enlarge the rights of Chinese aliens simply because they have presented a writ of habeas corpus. If they are not entitled to bail during the pendency of the petition for the writ habeas corpus, they are much less entitled to it after the court has denied their petition.

    Considering the express and mandatory Acts of Congress relating to bail, we are of the opinion and so hold that the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction in granting bail to the said Co Puy. Therefore the order granting bail is hereby annulled and set aside an pronounced to be of no effect, and it is hereby ordered that the said Co Puy be remanded to the custody of the Insular Collector of Customs for such disposition as the law sanctions. So ordered.

    Arellano, C.J., Torres, Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 11366   March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY<br /><br />034 Phil 503




    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