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
 

   
January-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9542 January 11, 1957 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. P. L. GALANG MACHINERY CO.

    100 Phil 679

  • G.R. Nos. L-10360 & L-10433 January 17, 1957 - JULIANO A. ALBA v. JOSE D. EVANGELISTA

    100 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-7909 January 18, 1957 - CIPRIANO E UNSON v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    100 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. L-9704 January 18, 1957 - LORENZO LLANOS v. CLAUDIO SIMBORIO, ET AL.

    100 Phil 707

  • G.R. No. L-8346 January 22, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROCESO BINSOL

    100 Phil 713

  • G.R. No. L-8645 January 23, 1957 - PORT MOTORS v. FELIPE RAPOSAS

    100 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-8896 January 23, 1957 - EARNSHAW DOCKS & HONOLULU IRON WORKS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    100 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. L-9660 January 23, 1957 - FIDEL AMANTE v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ

    100 Phil 748

  • G.R. No. L-9442 January 28, 1957 - URBANA D. ANZURES v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ

    100 Phil 752

  • G.R. No. L-8169 January 29, 1957 - SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FIREMEN’S INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEWARK

    100 Phil 757

  • G.R. No. L-9044 January 29, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PONCIANO ARPON

    100 Phil 765

  • G.R. No. L-9507 January 29, 1957 - GONZALO N. RUBIC v. Auditor General

    100 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. L-9633 January 29, 1957 - EMILIO SORIANO v. ANTONIO ASI

    100 Phil 785

  • G.R. No. L-7586 January 30, 1957 - NARCISA B. DE LEON v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    100 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-8613 January 30, 1957 - LA MALLORCA TAXI v. ROMAN GUANLAO

    100 Phil 792

  • G.R. No. L-9195 January 30, 1957 - CITY OF MANILA v. MANILA REMNANT CO.

    100 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. L-9621 January 30, 1957 - ANG BENG v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    100 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-9666 January 30, 1957 - STANDARD-VACUUM OIL CO. v. KATIPUNAN LABOR UNION

    100 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-7030 January 31, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARIO MENDOVA

    100 Phil 811

  • G.R. No. L-7846 January 31, 1957 - RAFAEL LITAM v. REMEDIOS ESPIRITU

    100 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-8685 January 31, 1957 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. AURELIO P. REYES, ET AL.

    100 Phil 822

  • G.R. No. L-8960 January 31, 1957 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. MARIA B. CASTRO

    100 Phil 831

  • G.R. No. L-9126 January 31, 1957 - ASIA BED FACTORY v. NATIONAL BED AND KAPOK INDUSTRIES WORKERS’ UNION

    100 Phil 837

  • G.R. No. L-10058 January 31, 1957 - SEVERO ASUNCION v. JUAN BENALISA

    100 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. L-10998 January 31, 1957 - BERNARDINO O. ALMEDA v. FERNANDO SILVOSA, ET AL.

    100 Phil 844

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-9621   January 30, 1957 - ANG BENG v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION<br /><br />100 Phil 801

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-9621. January 30, 1957.]

    ANG BENG, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, v. THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, Respondent-Appellee.

    Julio T. de la Cruz and Emerito G. Bagabaldo for Appellants.

    Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Federico V. Siam for Appellee.


    SYLLABUS


    1. IMPORT CONTROL LAW; PROSECUTION AND CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF LAW; EFFECT OF EXPIRATION OF LAW; POWER OF PRESIDENT TO ISSUE DEPORTATION ORDER. — Petitioners were prosecuted in and convicted for violation of the import Control Law (Republic Act No. 650). They were also charged before the Deportation Board. Pending appeal of the criminal case, the Import Control Law expired, in view of which petitioners were ordered discharged. The Deportation Board however, recommended petitioners’ deportation, and the President issued the corresponding order of deportation. Held: That the expiration of the Import Control Law can not be considered favorable to them in the sense that it erases the stigma of their conviction. There is no law upholding such proposition. The benefit of retroactivity and liberal construction provided in Article 266 and 22 of the Revised Penal Code accrues when penal laws are repealed. In the case at bar, there is no subsequent repealing law that petitioners could mention. The law violated by them expired in virtue of its own force. What is more, the President, in the exercise of his executive prerogative and as an act of State, is vested with full power and discretion to issue orders of deportation. Such orders do not depend on a prior judicial conviction in a criminal case.


    D E C I S I O N


    PARAS, J.:


    The petitioners, both Chinese nationals, were prosecuted in and convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila’ for violation of the Import Control Law (Republic Act No. 650) in Criminal Case No. 21317. They were also charged before the Deportation Board. Pending appeal of the criminal case in the Court of Appeals, the Import Control Law expired, in view of which and with the conformity of the Solicitor General, petitioners’ motion for dismissal was granted and they were ordered discharged. The Deportation Board, however, submitted to the President of the Philippines its findings in the Deportation Case and recommended petitioners’ deportation. On January 18, 1954, the President issued the corresponding order of deportation. On March 1, 1955, the petitioners filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition for prohibition and certiorari, praying that the President’s order of deportation be declared illegal and that they be released. From the dismissal of the petition the petitioners have appealed before us.

    The issue raised is whether the order deporting the petitioners should be set aside, because the law defining the crime of which they were convicted had already expired, the order of deportation being based on said conviction.

    The felony with which the petitioners were charged was committed during the effectivity of the Import Control Law. The pertinent legal provisions are therefore Articles 366 and 22 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "ART. 36. Without prejudice to the provisions contained in Article 22 of this Code, felonies and misdemeanors, committed prior to the date of effectiveness of this Code shall be punished in accordance with the Code or Acts in force at the time of their Commission.

    "ART. 22. Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor the person guilty of felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same."cralaw virtua1aw library

    We cannot subscribed to petitioners’ contention that the expiration of the Import Control Law should be considered favorable to them in the sense that it erases the stigma of their conviction. There is no law upholding such proposition. The benefit of retroactivity and liberal construction accrues when penal laws are repealed. There is no subsequent repealing law that petitioners could mention. The law violated by them expired in virtue of its own force. The case of Tamayo, 6 Phil., 225, invoked by petitioners is irrelevant, as it involved absolute repeal.

    What is more, the order of deportation emanated from a branch of the government which exercises jurisdiction independent from the judiciary. The President, in the exercise of his executive prerogative and as an act of State, is vested with full power and discretion to issue orders of deportation.

    "The power to expel or exclude aliens being a power affecting international relations is vested in the political department of the government, and is to be regulated by treaty or act of Congress, and to be executed by the executive authority according to the regulations so established, except as far as the judicial department has been authorized by treaty or statute, or required by the paramount law of the Constitution, to intervene." (In re Paterson, 1 Phil., 96; In Re McGulluch Dick, 38 Phil. 41.)

    To spearhead all other consideration, it is fundamental that an executive order for exportation is not dependent on a prior judicial conviction in a criminal case. This axiom of law was reiterated in the decision in the case of Tan Tong v. Deportation Board, (96 Phil., 934) which pertinently ruled as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The power to deport aliens is lodged in the President of the Republic of the Philippines. As an act of state, it is vested in the Executive by virtue of this office, subject only to the regulations prescribed in section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code or to such future legislation as may be promulgated on the subject. (In re McGulluch Dick, 38 Phil., 41)

    x       x       x


    "By no form or manner of reasoning can the inference be made that by section 2702 of the Revised Administrative Code the Legislature intended that an alien can be deported for illegal importation only upon conviction therefor in a competent Court, and thereby deprived the Deportation Board of its power to investigate charges of unlawful importation of merchandise against an alien, especially, when as it appears from the record, no criminal action for unlawful importation has been filed against him. The language of the provision and the chapter in which it is found do not justify petitioner’s contention. No derogation of a power vested in the Chief Executive or a limitation thereof can be presumed by the implication from the mere addition of the Clause he may be subject to deportation at the end of Section 2702. This section punishes illegal importation and imposes , in addition to the penalty prescribed, the liability to deportation if the person found guilty is an alien. Its sole import is that if a competent court has found an alien guilty of a violation of section 2702 of the Revised Administrative Code, the proceedings outlined in section 69 of the said Code are no longer necessary for deportation. Beyond this it is unreasonable if not absurd, to presume that the legislature intended more. It could not have intended that if there is no conviction for a crime of unlawful importation, or if no charges have been filed against an alien therefor, the Deportation Board may not proceed to investigate said charges against him and recommend deportation." (Emphasis supplied.)

    In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed. So ordered, with costs against the appellants.

    Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-9621   January 30, 1957 - ANG BENG v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION<br /><br />100 Phil 801


    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