Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

ANG TIBAY V.

CIR
To begin with the issue before us is to realize the functions of the CIR. The CIR is a special court The averments of the informations to the effect that the two accused "with intent to kill, qualified
whose functions are specifically stated in the law of its creation which is the Commonwealth Act with treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength did x x x assault, attack and
No. 103). It is more an administrative board than a part of the integrated judicial system of the employ personal violence upon" the victims "by then and there shooting them with a gun, hitting
nation. It is not intended to be a mere receptive organ of the government. Unlike a court of [them]" on various parts of their bodies "which were the direct and immediate cause of their
justice which is essentially passive, acting only when its jurisdiction is invoked and deciding only deaths" did not sufficiently set forth the facts and circumstances describing how treachery
cases that are presented to it by the parties litigant, the function of the CIR, as will appear from attended each of the killings. It should not be difficult to see that merely averring the killing of a
perusal of its organic law is more active, affirmative and dynamic. It not only exercises judicial or person by shooting him with a gun, without more, did not show how the execution of the crime
quasi-judicial functions in the determination of disputes between employers and employees but was directly and specially ensured without risk to the accused from the defense that the victim
its functions are far more comprehensive and extensive. It has jurisdiction over the entire might make. Indeed, the use of the gun as an instrument to kill was not per se treachery, for
Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle any question, matter controversy or there are other instruments that could serve the same lethal purpose. Nor did the use of the term
disputes arising between, and/ or affecting employers and employees or laborers, and landlords treachery constitute a sufficient averment, for that term, standing alone, was nothing but a
and tenants or farm-laborers, and regulates the relations between them, subject to, and in conclusion of law, not an averment of a fact. In short, the particular acts and circumstances
accordance with, the provisions of CA 103. constituting treachery as an attendant circumstance in murder were missing from the
informations.
The CIR is free from rigidity of certain procedural requirements, but this not mean that it can in
justiciable cases coming before it, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential x x x. The requirement of sufficient factual averments is meant to inform the accused of the
requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character. There are nature and cause of the charge against him in order to enable him to prepare his defense. This
cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character: requirement accords with the presumption of innocence in his favor, pursuant to which he is
always presumed to have no independent knowledge of the details of the crime he is being
(1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s cause and submit evidence in charged with. To have the facts stated in the body of the information determine the crime of
support thereof; which he stands charged and for which he must be tried thoroughly accords with common sense
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented; and with the requirements of plain justice, x x x.
(3) The decision must have something to support itself;
(4) The evidence must be substantial;
(5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing; or at least contained LAO GI V. CA
in the record and disclosed to the parties affected; Although a deportation proceeding does not partake of the nature of a criminal action, however,
(6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the considering that it is a harsh and extraordinary administrative proceeding affecting the freedom
law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate; and liberty of a person, the constitutional right of such person to due process should not be
(7) The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner denied. Thus, the provisions of the Rules of Court of the Philippines particularly on criminal
that the parties to the proceeding can know the various Issue involved, and the reason for the procedure are applicable to deportation proceedings.
decision rendered. Under Section 37(c) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 as amended, it is provided:
c No alien shall be deported without being informed of the specific grounds for deportation nor
The failure to grasp the fundamental issue involved is not entirely attributable to the parties without being given a hearing under rules of procedure to be prescribed by the Commissioner of
adversely affected by the result. Accordingly, the motion for a new trial should be, and the same Immigration.
is hereby granted, and the entire record of this case shall be remanded to the CIR, with Hence, the charge against an alien must specify the acts or omissions complained of which must
instruction that it reopen the case receive all such evidence as may be relevant, and otherwise be stated in ordinary and concise language to enable a person of common understanding to
proceed in accordance with the requirements set forth. know on what ground he is intended to be deported and enable the CID to pronounce a proper
judgment. 3
Before any charge should be filed in the CID a preliminary investigation must be conducted to
PEOPLE V. VALDEZ determine if there is a sufficient cause to charge the respondent for deportation. 4 The issuance
For complaint or information to be sufficient, it must state the name of the accused; the of warrants of arrest, arrests without warrant and service of warrants should be in accordance
designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as likewise with Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure; 5 search warrants issued by the
constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission CID shall be governed by Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure; 6 and so the matter
of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed. What is controlling is not the of bail, motion to quash, and trial, 7 among others. Fealty to the prescribed rules of procedure in
title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part deportation cases shall insure a speedy, fair and just dispensation of justice.
thereof allegedly violated, these being mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the The Court takes note of the fact that a private prosecutor is assisting in the prosecution of the
description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. The acts or omissions case by the special prosecutor of the CID. The Court sees no reason why a private prosecutor
complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common should be allowed to participate in a deportation case. Under the 1985 Rules on Criminal
understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to Procedure, particularly Section 16, Rule 110 thereof, an offended party may intervene in a
pronounce proper judgment. No information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately criminal prosecution when there is civil liability arising from the criminal action claimed by said
and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged. Every element of the offense must be party. In such case he may intervene by counsel.
stated in the information. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be included therein In deportation cases, the Court cannot conceive of any justification for a private party to have
must be determined by reference to the definitions and essentials of the specified crimes. The any right to intervene. Even if such party can establish any damages due him arising from the
requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in the information is to inform the accused of the deportation charge against the alien, such relief cannot be afforded him in the deportation
nature of the accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his defense. The proceeding. His recourse if at all is in the ordinary courts. Thus the Court rules that the
presumption is that the accused has no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the intervention of a private prosecutor should not be allowed in deportation cases. The possibility of
offense. [emphasis supplied] oppression, harrassment and persecution cannot be discounted. The deportation of an alien is
the sole concern of the State. This is the reason why there are special prosecutors and fiscals due process, since the BOC ordered the deportation of the alien without conducting summary deportation
tasked to prosecute such cases. proceedings and without affording the alien the right to be heard on his motion for reconsideration and adduce
evidence thereon.
HARVEY V. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO
While pedophilia is not a crime under the Revised Penal Code, it violates the declared policy of
the state to promote and protect the physical, moral, spiritual and social well being of the youth. SEC OF JUSTICE V. KORUGA
The arrest of petitioners was based on the probable cause determined after close surveillance of Were the Court to follow the letter of Section 37(a)(4) and make it applicable only to convictions under the
3 months. The existence of probable cause justified the arrest and seizure of articles linked to Philippine prohibited drugs law, the Court will in effect be paving the way to an absurd situation whereby aliens
the offense. The articles were seized as an incident to a lawful arrest; therefore the articles are convicted of foreign prohibited drugs laws may be allowed to enter the country to the detriment of the public
admissible evidences (Rule 126, Section12 of Rules on Criminal Procedure). health and safety of its citizens. It suggests a double standard of treatment where only aliens convicted of
Philippine prohibited drugs law would be deported, while aliens convicted of foreign prohibited drugs laws would
The rule that search and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant of arrest is not an be allowed entry in the country.The Court must emphatically reject such interpretation of the law. Certainly, such
absolute rule. There are at least three exceptions to this rule. 1.) Search is incidental to the a situation was not envisioned by the framers of the law, for to do so would be contrary to reason and therefore,
arrest. 2.) Search in a moving vehicle. 3.) Seizure of evidence in plain view. In view of the absurd. Over time, courts have recognized with almost pedantic adherence that what is contrary to reason is not
foregoing, the search done was incidental to the arrest. allowed in law.

The filing of the petitioners for bail is considered as a waiver of any irregularity attending their Indubitably, Section 37(a)(4) should be given a reasonable interpretation, not one which defeats the very
arrest and estops them from questioning its validity. Furthermore, the deportation charges and purpose for which the law was passed.This Court has, in many cases involving the construction of statutes,
the hearing presently conducted by the Board of Special Inquiry made their detention legal. It is always cautioned against narrowly interpreting a statute as to defeat the purpose of the legislator and stressed
a fundamental rule that habeas corpus will not be granted when confinement is or has become that it is of the essence of judicial duty to construe statutes so as to avoid such a deplorable result of injustice or
legal, although such confinement was illegal at the beginning. absurdity, and that therefore a literal interpretation is to be rejected if it would be unjust or lead to absurd results. [37]

The deportation charges instituted by the Commissioner of Immigration are in accordance with Moreover, since Section 37(a)(4) makes no distinction between a foreign prohibited drugs law and the
Sec37 (a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 in relation to sec69 of the Revised Philippine prohibited drugs law, neither should this Court. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos.
[38]
Administrative code. Section 37 (a) provides that aliens shall be arrested and deported upon Thus, Section 37(a)(4) should apply to those convicted of all prohibited drugs laws, whether local or foreign.
warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation after a determination by the Board
of Commissioners of the existence of a ground for deportation against them. Deportation GO TEK V. DEPORTATION BOARD
proceedings are administrative in character and never construed as a punishment but a We hold that the Board has jurisdiction to investigate Go Tek for illegal possession of fake dollar
preventive measure. Therefore, it need not be conducted strictly in accordance with ordinary checks (as well as his alleged "guerilla" activities) in spite of the fact that he has not yet been
Court proceedings. What is essential is that there should be a specific charge against the alien convicted of illegal possession thereof under article 168 of the Revised Penal Code and
intended to be arrested and deported. A fair hearing must also be conducted with assistance of a notwithstanding that act is not the grounds for the deportation of undesirable aliens as
counsel if desired. enumerated in section 37 of the Immigration Law. The charge against Go Tek before- the Board
was not premature.
Lastly, the power to deport aliens is an act of the State and done under the authority of the The aforementioned obiter dictum the Qua Chee Gan case invoked by Go Tek and relied upon
sovereign power. It a police measure against the undesirable aliens whose continued presence by the trial court, is not of this case. In the Qua Chee Gan case the aliens were with economic
in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and tranquility of the people. sabotage which is a ground for deportation under Republic Act No. 503.
The ratio decidendi of the Qua Chee Gan case is that the provision of Executive Order No. 398,
DOMINGO V. SCHEER of 1951, the Deportation Board to issue a warrant of arrest upon the filing of formal charges
The settled rule is that the entry or stay of aliens in the Philippines is merely a privilege against an alien, is "illegal" or unconstitutional because it is contrary to the provinsion in section
and a matter of grace; such privilege is not absolute nor permanent and may be revoked. 1(3), Article III of the 1935 Constitution that warrants shall issue upon to be de by the judge after
However, aliens may be expelled or deported from the Philippines only on grounds and in the e under oath the t and the witness he may produce. (Note that under section 3, Article IV of the
manner provided for by the Constitution, the Immigration Act of 1940, as amended, and 1973 Constitution cause may be determined "by the judge, or such other responsible officer as
administrative issuances pursuant thereto. In Mejoff v. Director of Prisons,[66] we held, thus: may be authorized by law". See Santos vs. Commissioner of Immigration L-25694, November
Moreover, by its Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 3) the Philippines adopts the generally accepted 29, 1976, 74 SCRA 96, per Fernando, J.)
principles of international law a part of the law of Nation. And in a resolution entitled Universal A thorough comprehension of the President's power to deport aliens may show the
Declaration of Human Rights and approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations of baselessness of the instant prohibition action of Go Tek The President's power to deport aliens
which the Philippines is a member, at its plenary meeting on December 10, 1948, the right to life and the investigation of aliens subject to deportation are provided for in the following provisions
and liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied to all human beings were proclaimed. It of the Revised Administrative Code:
was there resolved that All human beings are born free and equal in degree and rights (Art. 1); SEC. 69. Deportation of subject of foreign power. — A subject of a foreign
that Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom set forth in this Declaration, without power residing in the Philippine Islands shall not be deported expelled, or
distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, excluded from said Islands or repatriated to his own country by the
nationality or social origin, property, birth, or other status (Art. 2); that Every one has the right to Governor-General except upon prior investigator, conducted by said
an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights Executive or his authorized agent, of the ground upon which such action is
granted him by the Constitution or by law (Art. 8); that No one shall be subjected to arbitrary contemplated. In such case the person concerned shall he informed of the
arrest, detention or exile (Art. 9); etc. charge or charges against him and he shall be allowed not less than three
days for the preparation of his defense. He shall also have the right to be
In Domingo v. Scheer,[28] the Court set aside the Summary Deportation Order of the BOC over an alien for heard by himself or counsel, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to
having been issued with grave abuse of discretion in violation of the alien's constitutional and statutory rights to cross-examine the opposing witnesses.
On the other hand, section 37 of the Immigration Law Provides that certain aliens may be 4. marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien; and
arrested upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration or of any other officer designated 5. political economic necessity
by him for the purpose and deported upon the Commissioner's warrant - "after a determination Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality This means that a naturalized
by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground for deportation as charged Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen.
against the alien." Thirteen classes of aliens who may be deported by the Commissioner are On the other hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine
specified in section 37 (See Po Siok Pin vs. Vivo, L-24792, February 14, 1975, 62 SCRA 363, citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino.
368). R.A. No. 2630 provides:
So, under existing law; the deportation of an undesirable alien may be effected (1) by order of Sec 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting
the President, after due investigation, pursuant to section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code commission in, the Armed Forces of the United States, or after separation from the Armed
and (2) by the Commissioner of Immigration upon recommendation of the Board of Forces of the United States, acquired United States citizenship, may reacquire Philippine
Commissioners under section 37 of the immigration Law (Qua Chee Gan vs- Deportation citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registering the
Board, supra). same with Local Civil Registry in the place where he resides or last resided in the Philippines.
The said oath of allegiance shall contain a renunciation of any other citizenship.
TAN SIN V. DEPORTATION BOARD Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the Republic and having registered the
1. ALIENS; DEPORTATION OF; POWER TO DEPORT WHERE LODGED. — Appellant same in the Civil Registry of Magantarem, Pangasinan in accordance with the aforecited
contends that it is Congress and not the President of the Republic that has absolute and provision, Cruz is deemed to have recovered his original status as a natural-born citizen, a
inherent power to deport aliens; that the power to deport aliens may be exercised by the status which he acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino father. It bears stressing that the act of
President only for reasons provided for in section 37, Commonwealth Act No. 613; and that the repatriation allows him to recover, or return to, his original status before he lost his Philippine
ground upon which appellant is sought to be deported is not among those mentioned in the citizenship
aforesaid law. Held: 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 his office, subject only to DAVID V. AGBAY
the regulations prescribed in Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code or to such future Petitioner made the untruthful statement in the MLA, a public document, that he is a Filipino
legislation as may be promulgated on the subject. (Tan Tong v. Deportation Board. 96 Phil., 934.) citizen at the time of the filing of said application, when in fact he was then still a Canadian
Section 37, Commonwealth Act No. 613, as amended, merely enumerates the grounds for which citizen. Under CA 63, the governing law at the time he was naturalized as Canadian citizen,
an alien may be arrested upon warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration or of any officer naturalization in a foreign country was among those ways by which a natural-born citizen loses
designated by him for the purposes. The fact that the ground upon which the appellant is sought his Philippine citizenship. While he re-acquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 six
to be deported is not among those mentioned in the law cited by him, does not mean that the months later, the falsification was already a consummated act, the said law having no retroactive
power to deport an alien whose stay in the Philippines has become undesirable for causes not effect insofar as his dual citizenship status is concerned. The MTC therefore did not err in finding
mentioned therein, has been withdrawn from the President or abrogated by the enactment of probable cause for falsification of public document under Article 172, paragraph 1.
Commonwealth Act No. 613, as amended. Section 52 of the last mentioned Act expressly
provides that section 69 of Act No. 2711 (Revised Administrative Code) shall continue to remain CO V. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
in force and effect. There is no dispute that the respondent's mother was a natural born Filipina at the time of her
marriage. Crucial to this case is the issue of whether or not the respondent elected or chose to
2. DEPORTATION BOARD; POWER TO INVESTIGATE UNDESIRABLE ALIENS AND TO be a Filipino citizen.
ISSUE WARRANTS OF ARREST. — The Deportation Board has been legally constituted by the Election becomes material because Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution accords natural
President of the Republic and vested with the power to issue warrants of arrest to apprehend born status to children born of Filipino mothers before January 17, 1973, if they elect citizenship
undesirable aliens, and after investigation conducted in the manner prescribed in section 69 of upon reaching the age of majority.
the Revised Administrative Code, to recommend their deportation if found undesirable. To expect the respondent to have formally or in writing elected citizenship when he came of age
is to ask for the unnatural and unnecessary. The reason is obvious. He was already a citizen.
3. ID.; ID.; TEMPORARY DETENTION OF ALIEN PENDING DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS, Not only was his mother a natural born citizen but his father had been naturalized when the
VALID. — The order of the Deportation Board to hold an alien in custody pending determination respondent was only nine (9) years old. He could not have divined when he came of age that in
of the deportation proceedings instituted against him is legal. Temporary detention is a 1973 and 1987 the Constitution would be amended to require him to have filed a sworn
necessary step in the process of exclusion or expulsion of an undesirable alien and pending statement in 1969 electing citizenship inspite of his already having been a citizen since 1957. In
arrangements for his deportation, the Government has the right to hold him under confinement 1969, election through a sworn statement would have been an unusual and unnecessary
for a reasonable length of time. procedure for one who had been a citizen since he was nine years old.
We have jurisprudence that defines "election" as both a formal and an informal process.
BENGZON V HRET In the case of In Re: Florencio Mallare (59 SCRA 45 [1974]), the Court held that the exercise of
Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may however reacquire the same in the manner the right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election
provided by law. C.A. No. 63 enumerates the 3 modes by which Philippine citizenship may be of Philippine citizenship. In the exact pronouncement of the Court, we held:
reacquired by a former citizen: Esteban's exercise of the right of suffrage when he came of age, constitutes a positive
1. by naturalization, act of election of Philippine citizenship (p. 52; emphasis supplied)
2. by repatriation, and The private respondent did more than merely exercise his right of suffrage. He has established
3. by direct act of Congress. his life here in the Philippines.
**
Repatriation may be had under various statutes by those who lost their citizenship due to:
1. desertion of the armed forces;
2. services in the armed forces of the allied forces in World War II;
3. service in the Armed Forces of the United States at any other time,

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen