GR L 13428; (November, 1959) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-13428; November 27, 1959
YAO LIT (YAO DIT), petitioner-appellee, vs. HON. A. M. GERALDEZ, ET AL., respondents-appellants.
FACTS
Petitioner Yao Lit was arrested in Manila on August 15, 1957, after being found acting suspiciously and in possession of a Chinese jueteng list. When required to produce his alien certificate of registration, he failed to do so. Consequently, the Office of the City Fiscal filed two complaints against him: one for violation of the Gambling Law in the Court of First Instance of Manila, and another for violation of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 562 , as amended, in the Municipal Court of Manila. On September 25, 1957, the petitioner filed a motion to quash the second complaint in the Municipal Court, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the Fiscal had no authority to file the complaint. Respondent Judge Geraldez denied the motion to quash and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking to annul the Municipal Court’s orders and restrain it from trying the case. The Court of First Instance granted the petition, prompting the respondents to appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the City Fiscal had the authority to initiate prosecution for a violation of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 562 , as amended by Republic Act No. 751 , without the prior intervention and election of the Commissioner of Immigration to prosecute rather than impose an administrative fine.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance. It held that the City Fiscal acted in excess of his authority by filing the complaint without first affording the Commissioner of Immigration the opportunity to exercise his discretion under the amended law. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 562 , as amended by Section 3 of Republic Act No. 751 , provides that upon violation, the Commissioner of Immigration has the option to either subject the alien to an administrative fine or to endorse prosecution. The logical conclusion is that the prosecuting official may not initiate court prosecution unless and until the Commissioner of Immigration has elected and decided upon prosecution in lieu of an administrative charge. The Court found that Congress intended for the Commissioner of Immigration, who has better facilities and records pertaining to aliens, to first investigate and handle such violations administratively. The Revised Charter of Manila, a general law under which the Fiscal claims authority, cannot prevail over Republic Act No. 751 , a special law, especially as the charter contains no provision specifically repealing it. Therefore, the motion to quash should have been granted by the respondent Judge.