You are on page 1of 1

* Tung Chin Hui vs. Rufus B. Rodriguez, G.R. No.

141938, April 2, 2001


Doctrine:

Case Doctrine: The writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued in cases in which the Bureau of
Immigration has duly ordered the deportation of undocumented aliens, specifically those found guilty
of illegally entering the Philippines with the use of tampered and previously cancelled passports
What is habeas corpus: Habeas corpus is a writ directed to a person detaining another, commanding
the former to produce the body of the latter at a designated time and place

Facts:

Petitioner, Tung Chin Hui, a 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 filed before the RTC 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 CA, 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.

Issue: Whether or not the confinement of Petitioner was legal


Held:

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.
Petitioners contentions 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 PIA, 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 show that Petitioner was actually named Chen Kuan-Yuan, and was using a
passport already cancelled by the Taiwanese Government
The Petitioners confinement being legal, the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.