Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1912 > November 1912 Decisions > G.R. No. 7718 November 27, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. LEE CHIAO

023 Phil 543:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 7718. November 27, 1912. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEE CHIAO, Defendant-Appellee.

Solicitor-General Harvey for Appellant.

Hartford Beaumont for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. DEPORTATION OF CHINESE UNDER ACT NO. 702; COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION. — Lee Chiao, a Chinese laborer, was found in the Philippine Islands without the certificate required by Act No. 702 of the Philippine Commission. An Act of Congress of March 3, 1901, provides that in the proceedings for the deportation of Chinese laborers, no warrant of arrest may be issued except on the sworn complaint of one of a certain class of officials mentioned in said law. Said Act No. 702 provides who may issue the warrant and by whom the arrest may be made, but contains no provision relating to the persons who may make the sworn complaint: Held, That the complaint upon which the warrant of arrest may issue must be made by officials of the Philippine Islands bearing the same relation to the Insular Government which the officials mentioned in said Act of Congress bear to the Federal Government.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


This action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, for the purpose of deporting from the Philippine Islands the defendant, who is a Chinese person. The complaint was presented in said court by Sandalio Rodriguez, who described himself as "un oficial debidamente autorizado por el departamento de immigracion de la Aduana de Manila, Islas Filipinas."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon said complaint a warrant of arrest was issued and the defendant was duly arrested and brought before the court. At the time fixed for the trial, the attorney for the defendant presented a motion to quash the warrant of arrest, for the reason that it was issued upon an insufficient affidavit or complaint. The attorney for the defendant alleged that under the provisions of the Act of Congress of March 3, 1901 (section 3) no warrant of arrest for a violation of the Chinese Exclusion Law could be issued, except upon the sworn complaint of the United States district attorney, the assistant United States district attorney, the collector, deputy collector or inspector of customs, the immigration inspector, the United States marshal or United States deputy marshal or the Chinese inspector, unless the issuing of such warrant of arrest shall first be approved or requested in writing by the United States district attorney of the district in which the same is issued. This motion to quash was granted by the Honorable Charles S. Lobingier, judge. From that decision, the Attorney-General appealed to this court.

The appellant insists that Act No. 702 of the Philippine Commission contains the procedure to be adopted in the deportation of Chinese laborers who are found in the Philippine Islands without the certificate required by said Act No. 702. In reading said Act No. 702, it will be noted that there is no provision whatever relating to the persons who may present the sworn complaint provided for in said Act of Congress of March 3, 1901. Said Act No. 702 provides that any Chinese person found in the Philippine Islands without the certificate of registration required by law, after the time provided for has elapsed, "may be arrested, upon a warrant issued by the Court of First Instance of the province or by the justice’s court of the municipality, returnable before said Court of First Instance, by any customs official, police, Constabulary or other peace officer of the Philippine Islands." While this Act No. 702 provides who may make the arrest, it contains no provision whatever relating to the person who may make the sworn complaint upon which the warrant of arrest may be issued.

In view of the positive provisions above quoted of the Act of Congress of March 3, 1901, and in viewed of the fact that Act No. 702 makes no provision relating to the sworn complaint upon which the warrant of arrest may issue, and holding as we do that a complaint must be presented, we are of the opinion that the provisions of said Act of Congress must be followed with reference to the persons who may present such sworn complaint to the proper court, upon which the warrant of arrest may issue. A number of said officers mentioned in said Act of Congress exist, in name, in the Philippine Islands. Congress evidently had a purpose in providing that certain persons only should make the sworn complaint upon which Chinese persons might be arrested for deportation. This purpose, as was suggested by the lower court, was evidently to prevent great abuses in the form of blackmail, etc., which might creep into the procedure and fail of detection.

It may be argued that the officials, who are required to make the sworn complaint mentioned in the said Act of Congress (March 3, 1901), are not found in the Philippine Islands. We have certain officials, however, in the Philippine Islands who bear the same relation to the Government of the Philippine Islands which the officers mentioned in the said Act bear to the Government of the United States. Certainly it was not the intention of Congress, when it provided by the Act of April 29, 1902, that the Philippine Legislature should provide the procedure for the deportation of Chinese persons, to permit such Legislature to disregard certain positive provisions of law relating to the procedure, in the same class of cases, in the United States. Neither are we of the opinion that the Philippine Legislature in adopting Act No. 702 intended to allow warrants of arrest to issue without the presentation of a sworn complaint by some competent person. In the present case the said Sandalio Rodriguez, as appears from the record, made a preliminary examination into the rights of the defendant, before the complaint was presented. In that preliminary examination it appears that he was a clerk in the immigration division of the Bureau of Customs. We are of the opinion, after a careful consideration of the provisions of the Act of Congress of March 3, 1901, that Sandalio Rodriguez was not authorized to present the complaint in the present case. Congress provided that certain persons only, holding a certain relation to the Government, should be permitted to make the sworn complaint. We do not believe that the Congress of the United States intended to place a greater impediment to the due administration of the Immigration Laws in the United States than was intended to be imposed upon the administration of the same laws in the Philippine Islands. Neither do we believe that the Philippine Legislature, in passing Act No. 702, intended that the warrant of arrest should be issued except in accordance with the Act of Congress then in force and expressly extended to the Philippine Islands.

By the Act of Congress of April 29, 1902, as amended and reenacted by section 5 of the Act of April 27, 1904 (32 Statutes at Large, part 1, p. 176; 33 Statutes at Large, pp. 394-428), all laws in force on said date, regulating, suspending or prohibiting the coming of Chinese persons or persons of Chinese descent into the United States, and the residence of such persons therein, including sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the Act of Congress of September 13, 1888, were reenacted, extended, and continued, without modification, limitation, or condition; and said laws were also, by the same Act, extended and made applicable to the island territory under the jurisdiction of the United States.

In view of the positive requirements of said Act of Congress (Act of March 3, 1901, sec. 3), relating to the only persons who make the sworn complaint in cases like the present, and the absence of any provision whatever in said Act No. 702, we are of the opinion that the complaint here must be presented by officers of the Philippine Government bearing the same relation to said Government which the officers mentioned in said Act of Congress bear to the United States Government.

For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion and so hold that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1912 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 7063 November 4, 1912 - TOMAS v. GODUCO, ET AL

    023 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. 6169 November 5, 1912 - FLORENTINO ADRIANO v. HIPOLITO DE JESUS, ET AL.

    023 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 7006 November 5, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. PASCUAL MORANDARTE

    023 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 7050 November 5, 1912 - NACARIA CASTILLO, ET AL. v. URBANO CASTILLO, ET AL

    023 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. 7321 November 5, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. PATRICIO CAMPO

    023 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 7539 November 5, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CIRIACO PUNSALAN

    023 Phil 375

  • G.R. No. 7892 November 5, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. SO FO

    023 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 7159 November 8, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELINO RIVERA, ET AL.

    023 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 7929 November 8, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. GENOVEVA APEGO

    023 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 8179 November 8, 1912 - THEODORE E. ATKINSON v. M. L. STEWART, ET AL.

    023 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. 7424 November 12, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. POW SING, ET AL.

    023 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 7428 November 12, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SING, ET AL

    023 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 7567 November 12, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. SEGUNDO BARIAS

    023 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 7768 November 14, 1912 - MANUEL SARITA, ET AL. v. ANDRES CANDIA

    023 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. 4656 November 18, 1912 - RICARDO PARDELL Y CRUZ, ET AL v. GASPAR DE BARTOLOME Y ESCRIBANO, ET AL

    023 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 7735 November 18, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. LUISA POTESTAS

    023 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 7529 November 19, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIANO MOLINA

    023 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 8098 November 19, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. FULGENCIO GERNALE

    023 Phil 474

  • G.R. No. 8138 November 19, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MORADA

    023 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. 6769 November 20, 1912 - SANTIAGO VANO UY TAT TONG v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    023 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 7705 November 21, 1912 - ELIAS ORO v. LEOCADIO PAJARILLO

    023 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. 7819 November 21, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. PO CHENGCO

    023 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. 7480 November 22, 1912 - MIGUEL VELASCO Y CUARTERONI v. LAO TAM

    023 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. 7520 November 23, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE ABAD

    023 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. 7841 November 23, 1912 - LIM QUIM v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    023 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 7897 November 23, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. FULGENCIO CONTRERAS, ET AL.

    023 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. 5675 November 26, 1912 - JOSE CARLOS CHUNG MUY CO’S ADMINISTRATOR v. LIM QUIOC, ET AL

    023 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 6693 November 26, 1912 - ROBERT G. SHIELDS v. JOSE MCMICKING

    023 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 7718 November 27, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. LEE CHIAO

    023 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. 7627 November 30, 1912 - CITY OF MANILA v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT CO.

    023 Phil 547