Facts:

The case involves Epifania De Leon, acting on behalf of Yu Tian, as the petitioner and appellant against the Insular Collector of Customs, the respondent and appellee. The events leading to this case began on October 18, 1932, when a landing certificate was issued to Yu Tian by the Insular Collector of Customs. However, on April 1, 1933, an administrative warrant of arrest was issued against Yu Tian, accusing him of entering the Philippine Islands through false and fraudulent representations, which is a violation of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917. Following this, Yu Tian was brought before a board of special inquiry on April 3, 1933, to investigate his right to remain in the country. The board concluded that Yu Tian failed to establish his right to stay and recommended his deportation, a decision that was subsequently approved by the Insular Collector of Customs. In response, Yu Tian filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied by the Court of First...

Facts:

1. Landing Certificate Issued: On October 18, 1932, the Insular Collector of Customs issued a landing certificate in favor of Yu Tian, the appellant.
2. Warrant of Arrest: On April 1, 1933, the respondent Collector of Customs issued an administrative warrant of arrest against Yu Tian, alleging that he gained admission to the Philippines through false and fraudulent representations, violating the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917.
3. Investigation and Findings: On April 3, 1933, Yu Tian was brought before a board of special inquiry. The board found that he failed to prove his right to remain in the country and recommended deportation. The Insular Collector of Customs approved the recommendation.
4. Habeas Corpus Petition: The appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied by the Court of First Instance of Manila.

Key Details from Hearings:

• During the October 17, 1932 hearing, Yu Tian provided detailed answers about his birth, family, and brothers.
• During the April 3, 1933 hearing, Yu Tian gave inconsistent and evasive answers, including claiming he was born in the Philippines and later stating he did not know his birthplace. He refused to answer most questions about his family and background.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Legal Authority for Warrant: The warrant of arrest was authorized under Section 19 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, and no sworn information was required for its issuance.
2. Abuse of Discretion: The customs authorities acted within their discretion in ordering deportation, as Yu Tian’s inconsistent and evasive answers during the hearing provided sufficient grounds to conclude that he gained admission through false and fraudulent representations.
3. Right to Remain Silent: The appellant’s argument that Yu Tian had a right to remain silent during the hearing was rejected, as such silence could be interpreted as an inability to prove his right to remain in the country.