FIRST
DIVISION
THE
UNITED STATES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
G.
R.
No. 9313
January
5, 1915
-versus-
SIA LAM
HAN,
Defendant-Appellee.
D
E C I S I
O N
JOHNSON,
J :
It appears from the record
that on the 24th day of July 1913, a Complaint was filed in the Court
of
First Instance of the city of Manila, alleging that the defendant and
appellee,
Sia Lam Han, is a Chinese laborer within the Philippine Islands,
without
the Certificate of Residence required by Act No. 702 of the United
States
Philippine Commission, and asked for his arrest, in order that the
Court
might determine whether he had a right to remain in the Islands, and
that
he be deported if he be found without legal right to remain.
The Order of Arrest
was issued, the respondent was arrested, brought before the Court and
tried.
At the close of the trial, the Honorable A. S. Crossfield, Judge, found
from the evidence that the defendant is the son of a merchant; that he
came to the Philippine Islands when he was 14 years of age; that he was
still a minor by several years when certificates of registration were
issued;
that he is now a merchant and has been a merchant for the five years
last
past, being a partner in a business with a capital stock of from four
to
five thousand pesos, and entered a judgment dismissing the complaint
and
discharging the respondent from custody, with costs de officio.
From that judgment
the Solicitor-General appealed to this court and alleged (a) that the
lower
court erred in its finding of facts; and (b) that the lower court erred
in dismissing the Complaint and discharging the respondent.
An examination of the
facts shows that the appellee was taken before the customs officials
and
examined. During that examination he testified that he was 27 years of
age; that he was a merchant in the dry goods business; that he had
about
P2,000 invested in said business; that he was a Chinaman; that he came
to the Philippine Islands about four years before the date of the
examination
[the examination was had on the 24th day of July, 1913]; that he landed
at Zamboanga; that he came to Zamboanga from Sandakan.
During the examination
in the Court of First Instance, the appellee declared again in his own
behalf and stated that he was a merchant doing business in the City of
Manila; that he came to the Philippine Islands about thirteen years
before;
that he landed at Zamboanga; that he was 14 years old when he came;
that
he was 27 years old at the time of the examination; that his father was
a merchant in China; that when he landed in the Philippine Islands he
did
not present himself to the immigration authorities; that he did not
have
the regular Chinese certificate permitting him to land in the
Philippine
Islands. He further stated that when he arrived in the Philippine
Islands,
the Spaniards were still governing the Islands.
Accepting the
declaration
of the appellee made before the Court of First Instance, it clearly
appears
that he was in the Philippine Islands during the years within which
Chinese
laborers were required to register under Act No. 702. There is no
attempt
on his part to show that he was a merchant during that period. One of
the
reasons why he was permitted to remain in the Philippine Islands by the
lower court was the fact that he was the son of a merchant. That fact
may
or may not be true, but inasmuch as his father was not a merchant in
the
Philippine Islands, the fact cannot avail the appellee or give him a
right
to remain here. Inasmuch as the record shows that the appellee was in
the
Philippine Islands during the period within which he was required by
law
to register under Act No. 702, and in view of the fact that he has
failed
to show that he was a merchant during that period, he has failed to
show
any right to remain in the Philippine Islands. (U. S. vs. Yu Wa, 28
Phil.
Rep., 1]. It is not incumbent upon the Government to prove
affirmatively that the appellee in the present case was a laborer and
should
have registered under the Act. The burden is by law expressly placed
upon
the alien to demonstrate that he was not within the class which was
required
by the Act to register. The law provides that every Chinese person
found
without the required certificate in the Philippine Islands, after the
expiration
of the time limited by law for registration, shall be presumed, in the
absence of satisfactory proof to the contrary, to be a Chinese laborer
and shall be subject to deportation as provided for by Act No. 702. The
mere fact that he becomes a merchant after the expiration of the period
within which the law required him to register, is not sufficient. The
fact
which determines whether or not he shall be deported is whether or not
he obtained a certificate during the period required by law. [U. S. vs.
Lim Co, 12 Phil. Rep., 703]. It is the status which he enjoyed
during
the period for registration which determines his right to remain. If he
was a laborer during that period, and failed to register, the fact that
he is a merchant now will not defeat his deportation. [Juan Co vs.
Rafferty,
14 Phil. Rep., 235]. The appellee made no effort, in the present case,
to show that he was a merchant during the period required for
registration.
He clearly admits that he was not. He claimed that he came to the
Philippine
Islands during the Spanish regime and that he had been a merchant only
during the past three or four years.
In our opinion the
judgment of the lower court should be and is hereby reversed, and it is
hereby ordered that a judgment be entered directing that the cause be
remanded
to the Court below, with direction that a judgment be entered ordering
the appellee deported from the Philippine Islands. And without any
finding
as to costs, it is so ordered.
Arellano, C.J.,
Torres, Carson and Araullo, JJ., concur.
Separate
Opinions
MORELAND,
J.,
Concurring:
I agree with this
Decision
except that if the question were an open one, I would doubt the right
of
the Government to appeal in cases of this character. |