VOL.

356, APRIL 2, 2001 31

Tung Chin Hui vs. Rodriguez

*
G.R. No. 141938. April 2, 2001.

TUNG CHIN HUI, petitioner, vs. RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ,

Commissioner of Immigration and the BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation, respondents.

Habeas Corpus; Appeals; Pleadings and Practice; 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.·This Court already rejected
the same arguments in its earlier Decision in GR No. 137571, which
debunked petitionerÊs challenge to the propriety of the appeal.
Pertinent portions of that Decision are 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:
ÂSEC. 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

________________

* THIRD DIVISION.

32

32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tung Chin Hui vs. Rodriguez

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
motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or
reconsideration shall be allowed.Ê
Same; Words and Phrases; 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.·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. Section 1, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court provides that „the
writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement
or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by
which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the
person entitled thereto.‰ The objective of the writ is to determine
whether the confinement or detention is valid or lawful. If it is, the
writ cannot be issued.
Same; The return of the writ shall be considered prima facie
evidence of the cause of the restraint.·Echoing the holding of the
RTC, herein petitioner argues that no evidence was presented to
prove that he was an „undocumented alien‰; that is, that he
tampered with a passport that had already been cancelled by the
Taiwanese government. He further contends that he was in fact
allowed to enter the Philippines seventeen times from 1995 to 1998,
notwithstanding the alleged cancellation of his passport in 1995.
These contentions are not meritorious. The Return of the Writ
submitted by respondents before the trial court clearly shows that
petitioner had lawfully been charged and ordered deported for being
an undocumented alien. Section 13, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court
specifically provides that „the return [of the writ] shall be
considered prima facie evidence of the cause of the restraint; x x x.‰
Same; The mere fact that a citizen or subject is out of the
territory of his country does not relieve him from that allegiance
which he owes to his government, and his government may, under
certain conditions, properly and legally request his return.·The
foregoing letters of the official representative of the Taiwanese
government belie petitionerÊs submission that there was no
evidence to prove the findings of the CA and the Board of
Commissioners. Verily, these documents constitute sufficient
justification for his deportation. As the Court held in the landmark
case Forbes v. Chuoco Tiaco, „[t]he mere fact that a citizen or
subject is out of the territory of his country does not relieve him
from that allegiance which he

33

VOL. 356, APRIL 2, 2001 33

Tung Chin Hui vs. Rodriguez

owes to his government, and his government may, under certain
conditions, properly and legally request his return.‰
Same; Aliens; An alien has the burden of proof to show that he
entered the Philippines lawfully.·In any event, when petitioner
filed the Petition for Habeas Corpus before the RTC, he was
afforded ample opportunity to air his side and to assail the legal
and factual bases of the Board of CommissionersÊ Summary
Deportation Order. Moreover, he could have raised the same points
in the proceedings before the CA and even before this Court. Indeed,
an alien has the burden of proof to show that he entered the
Philippines lawfully. Petitioner has not discharged this burden. He
has not controverted·either before the RTC, the CA or this Court·
the Board of CommissionersÊ ruling that he was in fact Chen Kuan-
Yuan, who was „sentenced to 8 years and 2 months imprisonment
for drug trafficking and violation of controlling guns, ammunition
and knives law‰ and was holding a passport cancelled by the
Republic of China in 1995.
Same; Even if an alienÊs arrest was illegal, the fact that he had
already been charged and ordered deported by the Board of
Commissioners when the Petition for Habeas Corpus was filed bars
his subsequent release.·Just as unmeritorious is petitionerÊs
contention that „at the time of his detention, there was no
deportation charge filed against him.‰ Assuming arguendo that his
arrest was illegal, supervening events bar his subsequent release.
In this case, when the Petition for Habeas Corpus was filed,
petitioner had already been charged and ordered deported by the
Board of Commissioners.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Marciano J. Cagatan for petitioner.
Bonifacio Q. Manansala co-counsel for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondents.

PANGANIBAN, J.:
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 en-

34

34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tung Chin Hui vs. Rodriguez
tering the Philippines with the use of tampered and
previously cancelled passports.

The Case

Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 451 of the

Rules of Court, assailing the July 30, 1999 Decision of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 51723. The
dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads as-follows:

„WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby

GRANTED. The petition for habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
2
„SO ORDERED.‰
3
The CA reversed the January 7, 1999 Decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, which disposed as
follows:

„WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered

GRANTING the petition, and as such, public respondent, Hon.
Rufus Rodriguez, Commissioner, Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation, is hereby ordered to immediately release the person of
petitioner, Tung Chin Hui, from his official custody, upon receipt of
4
this Decision.‰

Also challenged
5
by petitioner is the February 4, 2000 CA
Resolution denying his Motion for Reconsideration.

The Facts
6
Petitioner, a „Taiwanese national,‰ arrived in this country
on November 5, 1998, as a temporary visitor. A few days
later, he was arrested by several policemen, who turned
him over to the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation
(BID).

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 19-29. Penned by Justice Mariano M. Umali, with the

concurrence of Justices Quirino D. Abad Santos, Jr. (Division Chairman)
and Romeo S. Callejo, Sr.
2 CA Decision, p. 11; rollo, p. 29.
3 Written by Judge Guillermo L. Loja, Sr.
4 Rollo, pp. 70 and 116.
5 Rollo, pp. 61-63.
6 Petition, p. 1; rollo, p. 3.

35
 VOL. 356, APRIL 2, 2001 35
Tung Chin Hui vs. Rodriguez

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.
On December 11, 1998, petitioner filed before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila a Petition for Habeas
Corpus on the ground that his detention was illegal. In
their Return of Writ, respondents denied petitionerÊs claim.
In a Decision dated January 7, 1999, the trial court granted
his Petition and ordered his release. In its January 29,
1999 Order, it denied respondentsÊ Motion for
Reconsideration.
Respondents, who received the trial courtÊs January 29,
1999 Order on February 11, 1999, then filed a Notice of
Appeal on February 16, 1999. In an Order dated February
18, 1999, the RTC rejected petitionerÊs Opposition and
granted due course to the Notice of Appeal.
Subsequently, the appellate court rendered its July 30,
1999 Decision, which as earlier mentioned reversed the
trial court.
Meanwhile, during the pendency of the proceedings7
before the CA, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari
before this Court, docketed as GR No. 137571, contending
that the RTC should have rejected the appeal for allegedly
being filed late·beyond the 48-hour period provided under
the pre-1997 Rules of Court. In its September 21, 2000
8
Decision which became final on October 31, 2000, this
Court denied the Petition.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The appellate court held that petitioner was not entitled to

the writ of habeas corpus, because the BID Board of
Commissioners had found him guilty of violating Section 37
(a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended.
Citing documents from the Taiwan Economic and Cultural
Offices (TECO), the CA found that petitionerÊs passport had
been cancelled by the Republic of China

______________

7 Entitled Tung Chin Hui v. Rufus Rodriguez and BID Board of

Commissioners and docketed as GR No. 137571.
8 Entry of Judgment; rollo (GR No. 137571), p. 175.
 8 Entry of Judgment; rollo (GR No. 137571), p. 175.

36

36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tung Chin Hui vs. Rodriguez

on the ground that its holder was not the real Tung Chin
Hui, but a fugitive from justice who had tampered the
passport. The CA also held that the TECO documents,
being public in nature, need not be testified to by the
persons who had issued9 them.
Hence, this Petition.

The Issues

In his Memorandum, petitioner submits 10

the following
issues for the consideration of this Court:

„A. PRINCIPAL ISSUES:

(1) Is the reglementary period within which to appeal

in habeas corpus cases forty-eight hours from notice
of the Decision appealed from? (as petitioner
contends); or is it 15 days similar to other cases,
from notice of the Decision? (as contended by the
respondents);
(2) Was the appeal taken by the respondents from the
Order of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch
26, denying respondentsÊ Motion for
Reconsideration, proper? (as postulated by the
respondents) or improper and not allowable being
violative of Sec. 1 (a), Rule 41, of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure? (as comprehended by the
petitioner)

„B. SECONDARY ISSUES:

(1) Should the Court of Appeals give weight to findings

of fact arrived at by the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 26, based on the evidence presented
or adduced during the trial of the case, in keeping
with established precedents?
(2) May the Honorable Court of Appeals consider
extraneous facts brought out by the respondents in
their memorandum but are not supported by the
evidence presented, identified and admitted by the
trial court during the hearing of the case?
_______________

9 The case was deemed submitted for resolution on October 4, 2000,

upon receipt by this Court of petitionerÊs Memorandum signed by Atty.
Marciano J. Cagatan. Filed earlier was respondentsÊ Memorandum,
signed by Solicitor General Ricardo P. Galvez, Assistant Solicitor General
Magdangal M. de Leon and Solicitor Renan E. Ramos.
10 PetitionerÊs Memorandum, pp. 4-5; rollo, pp. 117-118.

37

VOL. 356, APRIL 2, 2001 37

Tung Chin Hui vs. Rodriguez

(3) Did the Court of Appeals acquire jurisdiction over

the case when the appeal was filed out of time and
the Order appealed from is not appealable?‰

In the main, this Court will resolve the propriety of issuing

a writ of habeas corpus. As a preliminary matter, the Court
will also consider the propriety of the appeal before the CA.

The CourtÊs Ruling

The Petition is not meritorious.

Preliminary Matter: Propriety of the Appeal

Petitioner contends that the appeal from the trial court to

the CA was improper for two reasons: (1) it was filed
beyond the reglementary 48-hour period provided under
the pre-1997 Rules of Court; and (2) it assailed not a
judgment but a resolution denying 11
a motion
12
for
reconsideration, contrary to Section 1 of Rule 41.
This Court already rejected the same 13
arguments in its
earlier Decision in GR No. 137571, which debunked
petitionerÊs challenge to the propriety of the appeal.
Pertinent portions of that Decision are 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:

ÂSEC. 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.

_______________

11 It provides that „[n]o appeal may be taken from: (a) an order

denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration; x x x.‰
12 PetitionerÊs Memorandum, pp. 5-7; rollo, pp. 118-120.
13 Tung Chin Hui v. Rodriguez, GR No. 137571, September 21, 2000,
340 SCRA 765, per Panganiban, J. Citations omitted.

38

38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tung Chin Hui vs. Rodriguez

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.Ê
In this light, the appeal was seasonably filed within the 15-day
reglementary period.

xxx xxx xxx

We agree with respondents. In referring to the trial courtÊs Âjudgment,Ê
respondents were clearly appealing the January 7, 1999 Decision. Had
they thought otherwise, they would have referred to the ÂOrder.Ê Indeed,
ÂjudgmentÊ is normally synonymous with Âdecision.Ê

Furthermore, the wrong date of the appealed judgment may be

attributed merely to inadvertence. Such error should not, by itself,
deprive respondents of their right to appeal, x x x.‰

Main Issue: Propriety of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

Habeas corpus is a writ directed to a person detaining

another, commanding the former to produce
14
the body of the
latter at a designated time and place. Section 1, Rule 102
of the Rules of Court provides that „the writ of habeas
corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or
detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or
by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld
from the person entitled thereto.‰ The objective of the writ
is to determine15 whether the confinement or detention is
valid or lawful. If it is, the writ cannot be issued.
In the present case, petitionerÊs confinement is in accord
with Section 37 (a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of
1940, as amended, which reads as follows:
„Section 37. (a) The following aliens shall be arrested upon the
warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration or of another officer
designated by him for the purpose and deported upon the warrant
of the Com-

_______________

14 Ilusorio v. CA, GR No. 139808, May 12, 2000, 332 SCRA 169; citing
Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. III, 1997 ed., p. 780.
15 See Sombong v. CA, 252 SCRA 663, January 31, 1996; Ordonez v. Vinarao,
239 SCRA 114, December 8, 1994.

39

VOL. 356, APRIL 2, 2001 39

Tung Chin Hui vs. Rodriguez

missioner of Immigration after a determination by the Board of

Commissioners of the existence of the ground for deportation as
charged against the alien:
xxx xxx xxx
(7) Any alien who remains in the Philippines in violation of any
limitation or condition under which he was admitted as a non-
immigrant;
xxx xxx x x x.‰

One such condition for the admission of aliens is found in

Section 10 of the same law, which requires them to „present
for admission into the Philippines unexpired passports or
official documents in the nature of passports issued by the
governments of the countries to which they owe allegiance
or other travel documents showing their origins and
identity as prescribed by regulations, x x x.‰
Herein petitioner was properly charged before the
Bureau of Immigration for illegally entering the
Philippines with the use of a passport issued to another
person and cancelled by the Taiwanese government in
1995. The Charge Sheet reads as follows:

„CHARGE SHEET

The undersigned Special Prosecutor charges for deportation CHEN

KUAN-YUAN @ TUNG, CHIN-HUI @ DONG TUNG, Taiwanese
national for violation of Section 37 (a) (7) of the Philippine
Immigration Act of 1940, as amended, committed as follows:

Âthat on November 21, 1998, respondent was turned over by the Western
Police District to immigration authorities and upon investigation, it was
found out that respondent [was] an undocumented alien it appearing
that respondent [was] in possession of a tampered Taiwanese passport
which was cancelled by the Taiwanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on
which was cancelled by the Taiwanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on
July 19, 1995, in violation of Sec. 37 (a) (7) of the Philippine Immigration
Act of 1940, as amended.ʉ

Subsequently, on November 25, 1998, the BID Board of

Commissioners issued the Summary Deportation Order,
which is reproduced in full as follows:
40

40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tung Chin Hui vs. Rodriguez

„SUMMARY DEPORTATION ORDER

Records show that on November 21, 1998, respondent was turned

over by the WESTERN POLICE DISTRICT to immigration
authorities and upon investigation, it was found out that
respondent [was] an undocumented alien, it appearing that he
[was] in possession of a tampered Taiwanese Passport which was
cancelled by the Taiwanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on July 10,
1995.
Accordingly, on November 25, 1998, deportation charges were
filed against respondent with the Board of Commissioners for
violation of Sec. 37 (a) (7) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940,
as amended.
After a careful examination of the records, we determine that
respondent has violated the above-cited provision.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Board of
Commissioners hereby orders that summary deportation of
respondent, CHEN KUANYUAN @ TUNG CHIN-HUI @ DONG
TUNG to his country of origin subject to the submission of the usual
clearances.
Include his name in the Blacklist upon implementation of this
Order.
The Chief of the Civil Security Unit is hereby directed to
implement this Order within three (3) days from receipt hereof.
Give respondent a copy of this Order.
SO ORDERED.‰

Echoing the holding of the RTC, herein petitioner argues

that no evidence was presented to prove that he was an
„undocumented alien‰; that is, that he tampered with a
passport that had already been cancelled by the Taiwanese
government. He further contends that he was in fact
allowed to enter the Philippines seventeen times from 1995
to 1998, notwithstanding
16
the alleged cancellation of his
passport in 1995.
These contentions are not meritorious. The Return of
the Writ submitted by respondents before the trial court
the Writ submitted by respondents before the trial court
clearly shows that petitioner had lawfully been charged
and ordered deported for being an undocumented alien.
Section 13, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court specifically
provides that „the return [of the writ] shall be considered
prima facie evidence of the cause of the restraint; x x x.‰

_______________

16 PetitionerÊs Memorandum, pp. 8-9; rollo, pp. 121-122.

41

VOL. 356, APRIL 2, 2001 41

Tung Chin Hui vs. Rodriguez

Moreover, attached to the Return of the Writ were copies of

official letters of the Taiwan Economic and Cultural
Offices. These documents show that petitioner, whose real
name is Chen Kuan-Yuan, was using a passport that had
already been cancelled by the Taiwanese government in
1995 and previously issued to a man named Tung Chin
Hui. The two letters are reproduced in full hereunder:

„November 24, 1998

Honorable Rufus B. Rodriguez
Commissioner
Bureau of Immigration
Magallanes Drive, Intramuros
Manila

Attention: Chief, Intelligence Division

Sir:
In behalf of the Bureau of Immigration of the
Republic of China, I would like to inform your good
office that Taiwanese fugitive MR. CHEN, KUAN-
YUAN (D.O.B. October 12, 1956) tampered Republic of
China passport number M 9534820, issued to MR.
TUNG, CHIN-HUI (D.O.B. November 26, 1956). The
said passport was cancelled by the Republic of China
Ministry of Foreign Affairs on July 19, 1995.
Very truly yours,
KUO, KUANG-KWO
Senior Assistant

End. Fingerprint of Mr. Tung, Chin-Hui‰

„November 19, 1998

Honorable Rufus B. Rodriguez
Commissioner
 Commissioner
Bureau of Immigration
Magallanes Drive, Intramuros
Manila

Attention: Chief, Intelligence Division

Sir:
In behalf of the Bureau of Immigration of the
Republic of China, I have the honor to seek your kind
assistance to deport MR. CHEN, KUAN-

42

42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tung Chin Hui vs. Rodriguez

YUAN (D.O.B. 12 October 1956). Mr. Chen was

sentenced to 8 years and 2 months imprisonment for
drug trafficking and violation of controlling guns,
ammunition and knives law. Mr. Chen was arrested by
the Western Police District Command last November
16, 1998 through the request of the Republic of China
International Police, According to the travel record of
the said fugitive he has no record of leaving Taiwan.
Your immediate action and assistance in this
matter will be highly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
KUO, KUANG-KWO
Senior Assistant‰

The above-quoted official letters demonstrate the

speciousness of petitionerÊs contention that his passport
could not have been cancelled in 1995, inasmuch as he was
allowed to enter the country as late as 1998. The letters
show that the Philippine government was informed about
the cancellation only in 1998.
Furthermore, the foregoing letters of the official
representative of the Taiwanese government belie
petitionerÊs submission that there was no evidence to prove 17
the findings of the CA and the Board of Commissioners.
Verily, these documents constitute sufficient justification
for his deportation. As the
18
Court held in the landmark case
Forbes v. Chuoco Tiaco, „[t]he mere fact that a citizen or
subject is out of the territory of his country does not relieve
him from that allegiance which he owes to his government,
and his government may, under certain 19
conditions,
properly and legally request his return.‰

_______________
_______________

17 Indeed, Section 13 of Rule 102 provides as follows „If it appears that

the prisoner is in custody under a warrant of commitment in pursuance
of law, the return shall be considered prima fade evidence of the cause of
the restraint; x x x.‰
18 16 Phil. 534, 571-572 [1910], per Johnson, J.
19 Under Law Instruction No. 31 issued on June 8, 1988, by Hon.
Miriam Defensor Santiago, then Commissioner of Immigration, „if the
foreign embassy cancels the passport of the alien, he loses the privilege
to enter or remain in the country. The automatic loss of the privilege
obviates deportation proceedings under the Immigration Act, Section 37;
or the Administrative Code, Section 69.‰ In such case, „the Board of
Commis-

43

VOL. 356, APRIL 2, 2001 43

Tung Chin Hui vs. Rodriguez

Alleged Lack of Notice

We likewise reject petitionerÊs reliance on the ruling of the
trial court that „[w]hile it may be true that there is a
Summary Deportation Order against the petitioner
allegedly for being [an] undocumented alien, having used a
passport which had already been cancelled,
20
there is no
showing that he was informed about it.‰
Other than petitionerÊs bare allegations, however, we
find no sufficient basis to overturn the presumption that
the Bureau of Immigration
21
conducted its proceedings in
accordance with law.
In any event, when petitioner filed the Petition for
Habeas Corpus before the RTC, he was afforded ample
opportunity to air his side and to assail the legal and
factual bases of the Board of CommissionersÊ Summary
Deportation Order. Moreover, he could have raised the
same points in the proceedings before the CA and even
before this Court. Indeed, an alien has the burden of proof 22
to show that he entered the Philippines lawfully.
Petitioner has not discharged this burden. He has not
controverted·either before the RTC, the CA or this Court
·the Board of CommissionersÊ ruling that he was in fact
Chen Kuan-Yuan, who was „sentenced to 8 years and 2
months imprisonment for drug trafficking and violation of
controlling guns, ammunition and knives law‰ and was
holding a passport cancelled by the Republic of China in

1995.
 Just as unmeritorious is petitionerÊs contention that „at
the time of his detention,
23
there was no deportation charge
filed against him.‰ Assuming arguendo that his arrest
was illegal,
24
supervening events bar his subsequent
release. In this case, when the Petition

_______________

sioners may issue a summary judgment of deportation, which is

immediately executory.‰ See also Office Memorandum Order No. 34
dated August 21, 1989, issued by Acting Immigration Commissioner
Bienvenido P. Alano, Jr.
20 PetitionerÊs Memorandum, p. 7; rollo, p. 120.
21 Section 3 (m), Rule 131, Rules of Court.
22 Section 37 (d), Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended.
23 PetitionerÊs Memorandum, p. 9; rollo, p. 122.
24 See Velasco v. CA, 245 SCRA 677, July 7, 1995; Paredes v.
Sandiganbayan, 193 SCRA 464, January 28, 1991; Cruz v. Montoya, 62
SCRA

44

44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tung Chin Hui vs. Rodriguez

for Habeas Corpus was filed, petitioner had already been

charged and ordered deported by the Board of
Commissioners.
In sum, we hold that petitionerÊs confinement was not
illegal; hence, there is no justification for the issuance of a
writ of habeas corpus. Moreover, he has not shown any
cogent reason to warrant the nullification of the Board of
CommissionersÊ Summary Deportation Order.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the
assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Melo (Chairman), Vitug, Gonzaga-Reyes and

Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

Notes.·If the detention of the prisoner is by reason of

lawful public authority, the return is considered prima facie

evidence of the validity of the restraint and the petitioner

has the burden of proof to show that the restraint is illegal.
(Feria vs. Court of Appeals, 325 SCRA 525 [2000])
Where the BID has not yet completed its hearing and
investigation proceedings with respect to an alien and
 investigation proceedings with respect to an alien and
there is no showing that it is unduly delaying its decision,
habeas corpus proceedings are premature and should be
dismissed. (Rodriguez vs. Bonifacio 344 SCRA 519 [2000])

··o0o··

_______________

543, February 25, 1975; Matsura v. Director of Prisons, 77 Phil 1050

[1947].

45

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.