No. L-9728.

January 21, 1958]

In the matter of the petition to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines.

MAXWELL TONG, petitioner and appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, oppositor and appellee.
Appeal from the dicision of the Court of First Instance of Manila denying
appellant's petition for naturalization. The denial was based on the ground
that the only evidence presented by petitioner to show that he was lawfully
allowed to enter and reside in the Philippines, consisted of a certificate issued
by the Second Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Immigration, to the effect
that according to the records of that office petitioner was lawfully admitted
into the Philippines. However, the records referred to is a so-called master list
of aliens which was started to be prepared in 1941, and the entry with respect
to petitioner was made in 1946, and the data were taken from petitioner's
application, dated March 1, 1946, for the issuance of an immigrant certificate
of residence. The denial of citizenship was erroneous. The dubicus certificate
was only one of the several certificates submitted by petitioner. The
Immigrant Certificate of Residence introduced at the hearing as Exhibit L-5
is quite conclusive. It shows that petitioner "was admitted as an immigrant at
the port of Manila and is lawf ully entitled to remain in the Philippines." On
the other hand this point of "lawful admission" was never raised by the
appellee in the lower court.

As the denial rested on a ground which proved to be unfounded and as

petitioner possesses all the qualifications required for admission to
citizenship, the appealed decision is hereby reversed and one will be entered
granting his petition for naturalization. No costs. Bengzon, J., ponente.

[No. L-7490. January 21, 1958]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. JESUS
SALAZAR Y GABRIEL, defendant and appellant.
Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila finding
appellant, guilty of illegal possession of a sub-machinegun and sentencing him to five
years imprisonment and to pay costs. Appellant contends that the trial judge erred in
not recommending executive clemency inasmuch as the weapon had already been
forfeited to the Government, and no showing was made that he was a hardened
criminal. He obviously ref ers to the provision of Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code,
but such article has no application here, because it refers to penalties provided by the
Revised Penal Code; whereas the legal provision violated by appellant is another
piece of legislation. Besides, no questioning was made at the hearing, and no
manifestations whatsoever were uttered either by the accused or by his counsel to
explain the circumstances surrounding the case. Consequently no elements appear of
record in the light of which could be appreciated the degree of malice or the injury
caused by the offense.

Judgment affirmed, with costs against appellant. Bengzon, J., ponente.