Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Supreme Court
Baguio
THIRD DIVISION
Present:
COMMISSIONERS OF THE
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION,
Petitioners,
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
- versus -
NACHURA, and
PERALTA, JJ.
CHRISTOPHER KORUGA,
Respondent.
Promulgated:
April 24, 2009
x---------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
Unaware that the BOC already rendered its Resolution dated March 19,
2002, respondent filed on April 2, 2002, a Manifestation and Notice of
Appeal Ex Abundanti Cautelam[14] with the Office of the President,
which referred[15] the appeal to the DOJ.
III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE CHARGES AGAINST
THE HEREIN RESPONDENT WERE DROPPED.
There are two issues for resolution: (1) whether the exclusive authority
of the BOC over deportation proceedings bars judicial review, and (2)
whether there is a valid and legal ground for the deportation of
respondent.
It is beyond cavil that the BI has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction
to try and hear cases against an alleged alien, and that the BOC has
In House of Sara Lee v. Rey,[29] the Court held that while, as a general
rule, the factual findings of administrative agencies are not subject to
review, it is equally established that the Court will not uphold
erroneous conclusions which are contrary to evidence, because the
agency a quo, for that reason, would be guilty of a grave abuse of
discretion.
The settled rule is that the entry or stay of aliens in the Philippines is
merely a privilege and a matter of grace; such privilege is not absolute
or permanent and may be revoked. However, aliens may be expelled
or deported from the Philippinesonly on grounds and in the manner
provided for by the Constitution, the Philippine Immigration Act of
1940, as amended, and administrative issuances pursuant thereto.[31]
xxxx
(4) Any alien who is convicted and sentenced for a violation of the law
governing prohibited drugs;
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
not just any prohibited drugs law but the law applicable in this
jurisdiction, at that time, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.[32]
Were the Court to follow the letter of Section 37(a)(4) and make it
applicable only to convictions under the Philippine prohibited drugs
law, the Court will in effect be paving the way to an absurd situation
whereby aliens convicted of foreign prohibited drugs laws may be
allowed to enter the country to the detriment of the public health and
safety of its citizens. It suggests a double standard of treatment where
only aliens convicted of Philippine prohibited drugs law would be
deported, while aliens convicted of foreign prohibited drugs laws would
be allowed entry in the country. The Court must emphatically reject
such interpretation of the law. Certainly, such a situation was not
envisioned by the framers of the law, for to do so would be contrary to
reason and therefore, absurd. Over time, courts have recognized with
almost pedantic adherence that what is contrary to reason is not
allowed in law.
Evidently, the U.S. Court issued the Order of Dismissal in exchange for the
respondent's plea of guilty to the lesser offense. Though legally allowed in the
U.S. Law, We perceive that this strategy afforded the respondent with a
convenient vehicle to avoid conviction and sentencing. Moreover, the plea
of guilty is by itself crystal clear acknowledgment of his involvement
in a drug-related offense. Hence, respondent's discharge from conviction
and sentencing cannot hide the fact that he has a prior history of drug-related
charge.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Romeo A. Brawner and Jose L. Sabio,
Jr., CA rollo, p. 610.
[2]
Id. at 677.
[3]
CA rollo, p.140.
[4]
Id. at 139.
[5]
Id. at 138.
[6]
CA rollo, p. 141.
[7]
Id. at 144.
[8]
Id. at 154.
[9]
Id. at 157.
[10]
Id. at 159.
[11]
Id. at 187.
[12]
Id. at 243.
[13]
Id. at 72.
[14]
Id. at 103.
[15]
Id. at 124.
[16]
Id. at 74.
[17]
Id. at 126.
[18]
Id. at 133.
[19]
CA rollo, p. 9.
[20]
Supra note 1.
[21]
CA rollo, p. 630.
[22]
Supra note 2.
[23]
[24]
Board of Commissioners (CID) v. De la Rosa, G.R. Nos. 95122-23, May 31, 1991, 197 SCRA 853, 874; Lao Gi v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 81798, December 29, 1989, 180 SCRA 756, 761; Miranda v. Deportation Board, 94 Phil 531, 533
(1954).
[25]
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
[26]
See Tatad v. Secretary of the Department of Energy, G.R. No. 124360, November 5, 1997, 281 SCRA 330, 347;Ledesma v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113216, September 5, 1997, 278 SCRA 656, 681; Taada v. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, May 2,
1997, 272 SCRA 18, 48-49.
[27]
Republic v. Garcia, G.R No. 167741, July 12, 2007, 527 SCRA 495, 502; Information Technology Foundation of the
Philippines v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 159139, January 13, 2004, 419 SCRA 141, 148.
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
Repealed by Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 approved on June 7, 2002, or about
four (4) months after the BOC rendered its Judgment on February 11, 2002.
[33]
Ruben E. Agpalo, Statutory Construction (1990), p. 131, citing Central Azucarera Don Pedro v. Central Bank, 104 Phil. 598
(1954); Espino v. Cleofe, G.R. No. 33410, July 13, 1973, 52 SCRA 92; Philippine Acetylene Co. v. Central Bank, 120
Phil. 829 (1964).
[34]
Solid Homes, Inc. v. Tan, G.R. Nos. 145156-57, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 137, 149; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
Solidbank Corporation, G.R. No. 148191, November 25,2003, 416 SCRA 436, 460; In Re Allen, 2 Phil. 630, 643 (1903).
[35]
Philippine Retirement Authority (PRA) v. Buag, G.R. No. 143784, February 5, 2003, 397 SCRA 27, 37; Cosico, Jr. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 118432, May 23, 1997, 272 SCRA 583, 591; Commissioner of Internal Revenue
v. Esso Standard Eastern, Inc., G.R. No. 28502-03, April 18, 1989, 172 SCRA 364, 370.
[36]
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Solidbank Corporation, supra, note 35; People v. Rivera, 59 Phil. 236, 242 (1933).
[37]
Soriano v. Offshore Shipping and Manning Corporation,G.R. No. 78309, September 14, 1989, 177 SCRA 513, 519;Bello v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-38161, March 29, 1974, 56 SCRA 509, 518; Vda. de Macabanta v. Davao Stevedore
Terminal Company, G.R. No. L 27489, April 30, 1970, 32 SCRA 553, 558; Automotive Parts & Equipment Co., Inc. v.
Lingad, G.R. No. L-26406, October 31, 1969, 30 SCRA 248, 256.
[38]
BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) v. Exec. Sec. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000, 342 SCRA 449, 484; Pilar
v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 115245, July 11, 1995, 245 SCRA 759, 763; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 101976, January 29, 1993, 218 SCRA 203, 214-215.
[39]
CA rollo, p. 650.
[40]
Letters dated September 19, 2001 and September 20, 2001of Michael A. Newbill, Vice Consul of the U.S. Embassy in
the Philippines, CA rollo, pp. 148 and 149.
[41]
CA rollo, p. 245.
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]