Galang v CA

EMILIO GALANG, as Commissioner of Immigration  vs.THE  vs.THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and TEE HOO CHUN FACTS! Original action for a writ of certiorari to set aside a decision of, as well as a bail bond granted by, the Court of Appeals. The facts behind the case are as follows: Hook Tee Tee Chun entered the port of Manila on May !, "#$ aboard a ship fro% Hongkong port with the intention of entering this country clai%ing to be a &ilipino citi'en with a (hilippine passport.  After the preli%inary preli%inary investigatio investigation n carried out out by inspectors inspectors of )%%igration )%%igration,, )%%igration Co%%issioner Co%%issioner ordered the e*clusion of that +ute%io ayel -Hook Tee Tee Chun on May !, "#$ for breach of paragraph -e of section /# of the Co%%onwealth Act 01 as a%ended by A //, which punishes any alien who falsely represents to be a &ilipino to evade i%%igration law. On 2ece%ber 3, "#$ the C&) of Manila found the petitioner guilty and sentenced hi% to one -  year of i%prison%ent , with a fine of (,333.33 , with corresponding subsidiary i%prison%ent in case of insolvency , and ordered to pay court costs . The 4udg%ent orders , %oreover, the deportation of the appellant at the port of Hongkong after the sentence served in prison. On 2ece%ber !0, "#$ the petitioner presented an appeal to this Court even with the case in the lower  court , and present or bond for bail which was approved by the court a 5uo . On the sa%e date the court a 5uo ordered the Co%%issioner of )%%igration to release Hook Tee Chun pending his appeal for  having paid a deposit of (!,333.33 . The Co%%issioner of )%%igration refused to release the petitioner  on the ground that it has issued the order above alluded e*clusion . 6pon the foregoing facts, respondent Court found that a petition, filed by respondent Tee Hook Chun, for a writ of habeas habeas corpus was corpus  was well taken and ordered Hook Tee Chun released. The petitioner7s Motion for econsideration was denied, with the court saying that the said decision is predicated upon the theory that the warrant of e*clusion and the 4udg%ent of conviction of Tee Hook Chun are based upon the sa%e facts8 that the ad%inistrative proceeding for his e*clusion is inco%patible with his cri%inal prosecution in our courts of 4ustice8 that the institution of the cri%inal action i%plied a waiver of the authority to e*clude hi% by ad%inistrative proceeding8 and that the warrant of e*clusion, issued by petitioner on May !, "#$, beca%e ineffective upon the filing of the cri%inal case above referred to. ISSUE! 9O the CA erred in ordering the release of Hook Tee Chun:  "ES RATIO! At RATIO! At the outset, it should be noted that, although both proceedings arose fro% the sa%e facts, each proceeding sought to deal with a violation of a provision of the (hilippine )%%igration Act of "/3 which is entirely different and and distinct fro% that dealt with in the other proceeding. Thus, the warrant of e*clusion was based on section !" -a -; of said Act providing that: . -a The following classes of aliens shall be e*cluded fro% entry into the (hilippines: ***

***

***

-; (ersons not properly docu%ented for ad%ission as %ay be re5uired under the provisions of this Act. 9hereas the charge in the cri%inal case was for an offense punishable under section /#-e of said Act, reading:  Any individual who <

***

***

***

-e being an alien, shall for any fraudulent purpose represent hi%self to b e a (hilippine citi'en in order to evade any re5uire%ent of the i%%igration laws ***

***

***

shall be guilty of an offense, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not %ore than one thousand pesos, and i%prisoned for not %ore than two years, and deported if he is an alien.

The difference between this cri%inal offense and that of breach of said section !"-a -; is that the latter %ay be violated by an alien who, without claiming to be a Filipino,  seeks entry, either - in his true na%e, as an alien, but without the docu%ents necessary therefor, or -! by impersonating another alien, and with no %ore docu%ents than those authori'ing the latter=s entry. )n neither case %ay he be prosecuted cri%inally under the afore%entioned section /#-e. )n other words the sa%e act constitutes two -! or %ore different offenses not covered by Article /$ of the evised (enal Code, e*cept that, in the case at bar, one offense is punishable as a felony or cri%e, and the other is to be dealt with ad%inistratively. The one is not legally inconsistent with the other, and the prosecution for the for%er does not entail a waiver of the action due for the latter. The authority to order the release on bail of one accused of a cri%e before a court springs fro% its  4urisdiction - over the accused, ac5uired by virtue of his arrest, and -! over the party detaining hi%, by authority of the warrant of arrest issued by said court, and, conse5uently, as agent of the latter. 9hen the detaining officer holds the accused in pursuance of a warrant issued by another court, in connection with another case, whether the latter be cri%inal or civil said detaining officer is not bound to release said accused by order of the court first %entioned, and defendant=s continued deprivation of liberty, despite such order, upon the authority of the warrant issued by the latter court or by Congress, will not be illegal and would not 4ustify the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. )n its decision, respondent Court appears to have been i%pressed by the fact that the proceedings for e*clusion are %eant or e*pected to be a su%%ary8 that once accused before a court of 4ustice, Tee Hook Chun %ay no longer be deported fro% the (hilippines with the speed and dispatch conte%plated by the laws governing e*clusion proceedings, but, petitioner will have to wait for the rendition of a final  4udg%ent in the cri%inal case, as well as for the co%pletion of the service of the penalty i%posed upon Tee Hook Chun, if convicted, in said case8 and that only then %ay Tee Hook Chun be deported, although this will have to be done in co%pliance with the sentence rendered in said case, pursuant to section /#-e of our )%%igration Act of "/3, not by virtue of an ad%inistrative order of e*clusion, under  section !" -a -; of the sa%e Act.. The alleged conflict between said proceedings is, at best, purely physical, not legal, in the sense that the one does not nullify or set aside the other. )t is not different, physically and legally, fro% the conflict that %ay e*ist when a person is party in several cases, before different courts. 9hen he is tried in one case it %ay be i%possible for hi% to appear at the hearing of another case, which %ay have to be scheduled on or postponed to another date. The violation of section /#-e of our )%%igration Act of "/3, of which Tee Hook Chun is accused in the cri%inal case, is, also, a ground for his arrest and deportation under section 1;-a -" of said Act. 9hat is %ore, this section 1;-a -" provides that the ad%inistrative proceeding for deportation shall be >independent  of the cri%inal action> for violation of said section /#. Hence, an order of release in the

cri%inal action, upon the filing therein of the corresponding bail bond, would not affect the legality of the detention under a warrant of arrest or deportation issued by the Co%%issioner of )%%igration under said section 1;. ?i%ilarly, the ac5uittal of the accused in said cri%inal action would not bar his deportation under the sa%e provision, by the Co%%issioner of )%%igration. There is no e*press legal provision stating that the for%er shall be independent of the latter. @astly, let us consider the conse5uences flowing fro% aid conclusion. ?ection 1; refers to aliens not  yet ad%itted who, in the cases therein provided, >shall be e*cluded fro% entry into the (hilippines>, whereas the aliens alluded to in section 1; are those already admitted  into the (hilippines, who, for the causes specified therein, have beco%e sub4ect to deportation. (ursuant to the view taken by respondent Court, an alien accused cri%inally of a violation of section /#, would not  be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus to secure his release fro% custody under a warrant of arrest or deportation issued pursuant to section 1;, but said writ of habeas corpus would be available to hi% if a were sub4ect to exclusion proceedings under section !". )n other words, one already admitted  into the (hilippines have less rights than one who has not  as yet gained ad%ission into this country. Obviously, the law%akers could not have intended to so discri%inate against the for%er. There was no reason whatsoever therefor. )ndeed, the i%position of a penalty for violations of section /#, in addition to deportation, in cases falling under 1;, or e*clusion, in cases covered by section !", has other 4ustification than the need to effectively discourage said violations of section /#, which %ay not be sufficiently deterred by %ere deportation or e*clusion as the case be. )f the party accused in the cri%inal case were entitled to release, despite the warrant of e*clusion, as held by respondent Court, the effect of said cri%inal action as deterrent would be considerably i%paired. )n fact, under certain conditions, one bent on being in the (hilippines at all cost, even if only for a couple of years, would welcome his prosecution in court, for it would afford hi% a sure %eans < were we to accept the view of respondent court < to beat the proceedings for his e*clusion, gain entry into the (hilippines and be free to roa% therein on bail, until the 4udg%ent rendered in the cri%inal case shall have beco%e e*ecutory. 9H++&O+, the afore%entioned decision of respondent Court is hereby set aside, with costs against respondent Tee Hook Chun. )t is so ordered.