People v. Choy
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The United States initiated an action to deport Li Choy, a Chinaman, from the Philippine Islands on the grounds that he was a laborer and lacked the certificate required by Act No. 702. Procedural History: The complaint was filed in the Court of First Instance of Misamis. Li Choy was arrested and moved to quash the complaint and warrant of arrest, arguing that the chief of police was not authorized to file such a complaint. The motion was denied. The trial court found Li Choy to be a Chinese laborer who failed to possess the required certificate under Act No. 702 and ordered his deportation. The Petition: Li Choy appealed the deportation order, assigning as error the denial of his motion to quash and the finding that he was subject to deportation.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in overruling the motion to quash the complaint and warrant of arrest on the ground that a municipal policeman is not authorized by law to file a complaint for a violation of Act No. 702. Whether the lower court erred in holding that the defendant was subject to deportation.
Ruling
The judgment of the lower court ordering the deportation of Li Choy was revoked, and the defendant was discharged from custody. Costs were not awarded.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the motion to quash: The Court held that the lower court erred in overruling the motion to quash the complaint and warrant of arrest. This Court has previously decided this question in accordance with the appellant's contention in cases such as United States vs. Lee Chiao and United States vs. De los Santos. Therefore, the complaint and order of arrest should have been quashed based on the reasoning in those prior decisions. On the issue of deportation: The Court found that the lower court erred in holding the defendant subject to deportation. The Attorney-General moved for a judgment in favor of the appellant, agreeing with the second, third, and fourth assignments of error. The appellant asserted he was a merchant during the period when Chinese laborers were required to register under Act No. 702. An examination of the record by the Attorney-General and this Court convinced them that the appellant was indeed a merchant during that period. Consequently, he was not required to register. The Court further held that even if he became a laborer after the registration period, this change in status does not subject him to deportation. The critical factor is his status during the period when registration was mandatory for laborers. As he was a merchant then, he was not liable for deportation for failing to possess a Chinese laborer's certificate.
Main Doctrine
A Chinaman who was a merchant during the period when Chinese laborers were required to register under Act No. 702 is not liable to be deported simply because he subsequently becomes a laborer.