United States v. Yu
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant, a Chinese alien approximately 38 years of age, was charged with being found in the Philippine Islands without the certificate of registration required by Act No. 702 of the Philippine Commission, despite being in the islands when the Act took effect and continuously thereafter. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila discharged the defendant, finding that it was not sufficiently proven that he remained a laborer until the close of the registration period and that, under existing jurisprudence, a person of his status (merchant) was not subject to registration or deportation. The court gave the defendant the benefit of the doubt. The Petition: The United States, through the Solicitor-General, appealed the decision of the trial court.
Issue(s)
Whether the burden of proof was correctly placed upon the Government by the trial court. Whether the defendant, a Chinese alien found in the Philippines without the required certificate of registration under Act No. 702, is subject to deportation. Whether the defendant's subsequent change in status from laborer to merchant absolves him from the requirement of registration and potential deportation.
Ruling
The judgment of the trial court is reversed. The alien is remanded to the custody of the Collector of Customs for deportation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the burden of proof: The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in placing the burden of proof upon the Government. Act No. 702, Section 5, expressly places the burden upon the alien to demonstrate that he was not within the class required to register. The law presumes that any Chinese person found without the certificate after the registration period is a Chinese laborer subject to deportation, unless satisfactory proof to the contrary is presented. The Court clarified that the failure to have the certificate, not the status at the time of arrest, determines where the burden lies. On the requirement of registration and deportation: The Court found that the defendant was a Chinese laborer at the time Act No. 702 took effect and remained so for some years after the registration period closed. His only excuse for not obtaining the certificate was a brief period of sickness, which the Act did not consider a valid excuse for failing to register within the extended period, as it stipulated deportation for any Chinese laborer failing for any reason to secure the certificate within two years. The statute is plain and must be complied with, regardless of hardship. On the change of status from laborer to merchant: The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant's subsequent change in status from laborer to merchant does not absolve him from the consequences of non-registration. The status that determines his rights under the proceeding is that which he enjoyed during the period for registration under Act No. 702. If he was a laborer then and subject to registration, his current status as a merchant does not exempt him.
Main Doctrine
The burden of proof is upon the alien to demonstrate that he was not within the class required to register under Act No. 702. Failure to possess the required certificate, coupled with the status of being a Chinese laborer during the registration period, subjects the alien to deportation, irrespective of a subsequent change in status to merchant.