LAO GI V. CA G.R. No. 81798 December 29, 1989
FACTS:
Felomino Chia Sr.’s (Lao Gi) citizenship has been revoked making his children’s citizenship also revoked due to alleged fraud and misrepresentation.
The Commission on Immigration and Deportation filed a deportation case against the Chia family.
The original charge was amended alleging that the Chia’s refused to register as aliens and that his son Manuel Chia also committed undesirability.
The Chia’s filed a motion to dismiss the charges against them by the CID alleging that the CID has no authority to reopen a matter long settled under Opinion No. 191 (law granting them citizenship), series of 1958.
The CID special prosecutor also filed an opposition on the ground that the citizenship may be threshed out as the occasion may demand and that due process was accorded to respondents.
Remember earlier that Manuel Chia was charged with falsification of public documents in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila in Criminal Case No. 60172 for alleging that he was a Filipino citizen in the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale of certain real property. He was acquitted by the trial court in an order dated May 5, 1982, on the ground that Opinion No. 191, series of 1958 of the Secretary of Justice may be equated as res judicata and that revocation thereof by Opinion No. 147, series of 1980 cannot be considered just, fair and reasonable.
Respondents (CID) filed for MR but was denied.
The CID set the deportation case against respondents for hearing and Acting Commissioner Victor G. Nituda. While the deportation case is pending, the Chia’s took further action. Their petition for injunctive relief was denied by the CFI of Manila. They also lost their appeal in the CA.
Hence, herein petition for certiorari filed by petitioners wherein they seek to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and ask that a new one be rendered setting aside the order of the CID dated September 28, 1982, and directing it to proceed with the reception of the evidence in support of the charges against the petitioners.
ISSUE:
WON the CID special prosecutor is allowed to intervene in a criminal case.
HELD:
NO. In deportation cases, the Court cannot conceive of any justification for a private party to have any right to intervene. Even if such party can establish any damages due him arising from the deportation charge against the alien, such relief cannot be afforded him in the deportation proceeding. His recourse if at all is in the ordinary courts. Thus the Court rules that the intervention of a private prosecutor should not be allowed in deportation cases. The possibility of oppression, harassment and persecution cannot be discounted. The deportation of an alien is the sole concern of the State. This is the reason why there are special prosecutors and fiscals tasked to prosecute such cases.
The respondent CID was directed to continue hearing the deportation case against petitioners and thereafter, based on the evidence before it, to resolve the issue of citizenship of petitioners, and if found to be aliens, to determine whether or not the petitioners should be deported and/or otherwise ordered to register as aliens.
Hence, petition granted.