Spec Pro Class 2020

Facts:

Petitioner, Tung Chin Hui, Taiwanese National, arrived in the Philippines as a temporary visitor. Days after his arrival, he was arrested and was turned over to the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID). Petitioner was duly charged. In due course, the BID Board of Commissioners issued a Summary Deportation Order dated November 25, 1998, finding him guilty of possessing a tampered passport earlier cancelled by Taiwanese authorities.

​

Petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court of Manila a petition for Habeas Corpus on the ground that his detention was illegal, which was granted by the RTC and ordered his release.

​

Prior to the decision of the Court of Appeals, a petition for certiorari was raised by Petitioner to the SC, questioning the late filing of the notice of appeal by the Respondents against the petition for habeas having been done beyond the 48 hour reglementary period, thus the notice of appeal should have been dismissed. The Court denied the petition since the reglementary period for ordinary appeal, which is 15 days, also applies to the filing of an appeal from a judgment regarding habeas corpus. Thus, the issue regarding the reglemantary period has become final.

​

CA reversed the trial court decision, and dismissed the petition for habeas corpus. The CA held that petitioner could not seek relief through habeas corpus since he was found guilty of violating Sec. 37 (a) Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, for allegedly holding a passport that had already been cancelled and that its holder was not the real Tang Chin Hui. 
 

Issues:

1. Whether or not the appeal was filed beyond the reglementary 48-hour period provided under the pre-1997 Rules of Court; and

2. Whether or not the confinement of Petitioner was valid.

 

Held:

1. No. The Court had rejected the same arguments in its earlier Decision in GR No. 137571, which debunked petitioner’s challenge to the propriety of the appeal. Pertinent portions of that Decision were reproduced below:

 

"Clearly then, the reglementary period for filing an appeal in a habeas corpus case is now similar to that in ordinary civil actions and is governed by Section 3, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules, which provides:

‘SECTION 3. Period of ordinary appeal. — The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order.

‘The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed.’

​

In the present case, the appeal was seasonably filed within the 15-day reglementary period.

 

2. Yes. Under Section 37(a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, those aliens who remain in the Philippines in violation of any limitation or condition (in the present case being the condition of presenting unexpired passports) shall be arrested.  Such violation of 37(a) was properly charged and a Deportation Order was issued.

​

Petitioner’s contention that no evidence was presented showing him to be an undocumented alien is unmeritorious. The return of the writ by the respondents, which shows Petitioner was lawfully charged of violation the Philippine Immigration Act, is considered prima facie evidence of the cause of restraint.

​

In addition to the Return of Writ, attached to it were official letters of the Taiwan Economic and Cultural Offices, which showed that petitioner was actually named Chen Kuan-Yuan, and was using a passport already cancelled by the Taiwanese Government.

​

The petitioner’s confinement being legal, the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus was denied.