People v. Lui Pak Chuen
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Lui Pak Chuen, was charged with residing in the Philippine Islands without a legal certificate, in violation of sections 4 and 5 of Act No. 702. He was found guilty by the justice of the peace of Calbayog, Samar, and the record was transmitted to the Court of First Instance (CFI). A new information was filed in the CFI, and on January 31, 1920, the CFI found the accused guilty, declaring him a Chinese laborer without the required certificate of residence under Act No. 702, and ordered his deportation to China. The accused was notified of this decision on February 2, 1920, and did not appeal within the legal period. Procedural History: The accused was sent to Manila for deportation. While in Manila, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed against the Chief of the Constabulary, which was denied by the CFI of Manila but appealed to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 17306). Pending the habeas corpus decision, the accused's attorney filed a motion in the CFI of Samar on April 24, 1920, asking to set aside the January 31, 1920 judgment under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, attaching exhibits showing the accused possessed a 'section six certificate' and permission to enter the Philippines. This motion was denied on November 1, 1920, by Judge N. Capistrano, who believed the original judge considered the special certificate. The accused appealed this denial on November 12, 1920, and also appealed the January 31, 1920 judgment on the same date. The Petition: The appellant alleged that the trial court erred in finding he did not have the right to remain in the Philippines and in ordering his deportation, and in denying the motion to set aside the judgment. He relied on the doctrine in United States v. Li Sui Wun.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to set aside the judgment of deportation. Whether the accused has the right to remain in the Philippine Islands.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the order appealed from and set aside the judgment of deportation. The accused, Lui Pak Chuen, was declared entitled to remain in the Philippine Islands.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of denying the motion to set aside the judgment: The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion filed under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court found that the motion was presented within the period required by law. Furthermore, the failure of the accused to exhibit his certificate of residence was deemed excusable because the certificate was subsequently discovered to have been filed in the office of the Collector of Customs. This situation falls under the purview of section 113, which allows relief from judgments resulting from mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable negligence. On the issue of the accused's right to remain in the Philippine Islands: The Supreme Court ruled that the accused has the right to remain in the Philippine Islands. This conclusion was based on the doctrine laid down in United States v. Li Sui Wun, which, in turn, cited decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court emphasized that a 'section six certificate' legally obtained grants an alien the right to enter and remain in the territory, placing them on the same footing as aliens of the most favored nations. The possession of such a certificate removes the prohibition against Chinese aliens entering the United States and allows them to remain as long as they conform to the laws.
Main Doctrine
A judgment of deportation may be set aside under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure if the failure to exhibit a required certificate of residence was due to excusable negligence, especially when the accused possesses a 'section six certificate' entitling them to remain in the Philippine Islands, as per the doctrine in United States v. Li Sui Wun.