G.R. No. 33281 - MARCH 1930 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 33281March 31, 1930 Chin Ah Foo, et al. vs. Pedro Concepcion, et al. G.R. No. 32344March 31, 1930 Vivencio Legasto vs. Maria Versoza, et al. G.R. No. 32298March 31, 1930 Victor Kiamzon vs. Fabian Pudega G.R. No. 32331March 31, 1930 Estanislao Reyes vs. Clemencia Graño, et al. G.R. No. 32296March 31, 1930 Mateo Ramiro, et al. vs. Clemencia Graño, et al. G.R. No. 31838March 31, 1930 Jose Giorla, et al. vs. Director of Lands G.R. No. 31673March 31, 1930 Restituto J. Castro vs. Mariano Litao G.R. No. 32441March 29, 1930 Dominador Gomez vs. Honorio Ventura, et al. G.R. No. 32207March 29, 1930 Standard Oil Company of New York vs. Francisco Castro G.R. No. 32041March 29, 1930 Maria Angeles Ramos vs. Chio Chun Chac, et al. G.R. No. 32143March 28, 1930 Simeon Mandac vs. Domingo Samonte G.R. No. 32366March 27, 1930 Earnshows Docks & Honolulu Iron Works vs. Collector of Internal Revenue G.R. No. 32124March 27, 1930 Aquilino F. Pando vs. Carmen Kette, et al. G.R. No. 30892March 25, 1930 Ines Melgar, et al. vs. Tomas Delgado, et al. G.R. No. 30818March 25, 1930 Mariano S. Yatco vs. Intestate Estate of Pablo Manguerra, et al. G.R. No. 37084-85March 24, 1930 Zarate, et al. vs. Director of Lands G.R. No. 32280March 24, 1930 Philippine Trust Co.vs. Doroteo T. Macuan G.R. No. 32224March 24, 1930 Felix Rubin vs. Kabankalan Sugar Co., Inc. G.R. No. 32223March 24, 1930 Jose Rubin vs. Kabankalan Sugar Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. 32222March 24, 1930 Kabankalan Sugar Co., Inc. vs. Jose Rubin G.R. No. 32122March 24, 1930 Kabankalan Sugar Co., Inc. vs. Felix Rubin G.R. No. 31919March 24, 1930 Vicente Santiago vs. Cristina Cruz G.R. No. 31994March 22, 1930 Mariano M. Alonso vs. Vicente E. Reyes, et al. G.R. No. 31977March 22, 1930 Cirilo Dadivas, et al. vs. Rufina Bunayon G.R. No. 32254March 21, 1930 Li Seng Giap & Co., et al. vs. Municipality of Daet, et al. G.R. No. 31569March 19, 1930 Pedro Santos vs. Julian Santiago, et al. G.R. No. 31568March 19, 1930 Julian Santiago, et al. vs. Pedro Santos, et al. G.R. No. 32502March 18, 1930 Duhart Freres Y. Cie vs. Ernesto C. Macias, et al. G.R. No. 32636March 17, 1930 In re: Edward Randolf Hix.A.W. Fluemer vs. Annie Coushing Hix G.R. No. 35262March 15, 1930 People of the Philippines vs. Tan Boon Kong G.R. No. 32066March 15, 1930 People of the Philippines vs. Gona G.R. No. 31962March 15, 1930 Rosario Oñas vs. Consolacion Javillo, et al. G.R. No. 31871March 15, 1930 National Exchange Co., Inc. vs. Jose H. Katigbak, et al. G.R. No. 32076March 14, 1930 People of the Philippines vs. Natalio Ilustre G.R. No. 31832March 14, 1930 Intestate Estate and Heirs of Inocentes de la Rama vs. Talisay-Silay Milling Co., et al. G.R. No. 32494March 12, 1930 People of the Philippines vs. Gabriel C. Rivera G.R. No. 31946March 12, 1930 A.L. Ammen Transportation Co. vs. Maria de Margallo G.R. No. 31740March 11, 1930 Valentina N. Izaguirre vs. Encarnacion C. Viuda de Goitia G.R. No. 31739March 11, 1930 Leonor Mendezona vs. Encarnacion C. Viuda de Goitia G.R. No. 31141March 11, 1930 W.R. Macfarlane vs. B.A. Green G.R. No. 32181March 10, 1930 Mamerto POrtillo vs. Enrique Salvani G.R. No. 31286March 10, 1930 Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro vs. Director of Lands G.R. No. 31813March 6, 1930 Pedro Sesuya, et al. vs. Paula Lacopa, et al. G.R. No. 31978March 5, 1930 Paul A. Weems vs. Franklin Baker Co. of the Phil., et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Chin Ah Foo, et al. vs. Pedro Concepcion, et al. Vivencio Legasto vs. Maria Versoza, et al. Victor Kiamzon vs. Fabian Pudega Estanislao Reyes vs. Clemencia Graño, et al. Mateo Ramiro, et al. vs. Clemencia Graño, et al. Jose Giorla, et al. vs. Director of Lands Restituto J. Castro vs. Mariano Litao Dominador Gomez vs. Honorio Ventura, et al. Standard Oil Company of New York vs. Francisco Castro Maria Angeles Ramos vs. Chio Chun Chac, et al. Simeon Mandac vs. Domingo Samonte Earnshows Docks & Honolulu Iron Works vs. Collector of Internal Revenue Aquilino F. Pando vs. Carmen Kette, et al. Ines Melgar, et al. vs. Tomas Delgado, et al. Mariano S. Yatco vs. Intestate Estate of Pablo Manguerra, et al. Zarate, et al. vs. Director of Lands Philippine Trust Co.vs. Doroteo T. Macuan Felix Rubin vs. Kabankalan Sugar Co., Inc. Jose Rubin vs. Kabankalan Sugar Co., Inc., et al. Kabankalan Sugar Co., Inc. vs. Jose Rubin Kabankalan Sugar Co., Inc. vs. Felix Rubin Vicente Santiago vs. Cristina Cruz Mariano M. Alonso vs. Vicente E. Reyes, et al. Cirilo Dadivas, et al. vs. Rufina Bunayon Li Seng Giap & Co., et al. vs. Municipality of Daet, et al. Pedro Santos vs. Julian Santiago, et al. Julian Santiago, et al. vs. Pedro Santos, et al. Duhart Freres Y. Cie vs. Ernesto C. Macias, et al. In re: Edward Randolf Hix.A.W. Fluemer vs. Annie Coushing Hix People of the Philippines vs. Tan Boon Kong People of the Philippines vs. Gona Rosario Oñas vs. Consolacion Javillo, et al. National Exchange Co., Inc. vs. Jose H. Katigbak, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Natalio Ilustre Intestate Estate and Heirs of Inocentes de la Rama vs. Talisay-Silay Milling Co., et al. People of the Philippines vs. Gabriel C. Rivera A.L. Ammen Transportation Co. vs. Maria de Margallo Valentina N. Izaguirre vs. Encarnacion C. Viuda de Goitia Leonor Mendezona vs. Encarnacion C. Viuda de Goitia W.R. Macfarlane vs. B.A. Green Mamerto POrtillo vs. Enrique Salvani Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro vs. Director of Lands Pedro Sesuya, et al. vs. Paula Lacopa, et al. Paul A. Weems vs. Franklin Baker Co. of the Phil., et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-33281             March 31, 1930

CHIN AH FOO (aliasCHAN FOO WOO) and YEE SHEE (aliasYEE SUI YENG), widow of Chin Ah Kim,petitioners,
vs.
PEDRO CONCEPCION, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and LEE VOO,respondents.

Harvey and O'Brien for petitioners.
Lazaro Pormarejo for respondent Lee Voo.
J. A. Wolfson for respondent judge.

MALCOLM,J.:

The question for decision in this certiorari proceeding concerns the power of a Judge of First Instance, who has in effect acquitted a man charged with murder on the plea of insanity, and who has ordered the confinement of the insane person in an asylum, subsequently to permit the insane person to leave the asylum without the acquiescence of the Director of Health. Otherwise stated, the factor determinative of the question has to do with the effect, if any, of section 1048 of the Administrative Code on article 8 of the Penal Code.

On November 15, 1927, one Chan Sam (alias Chin Ah Woo), was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with the murder of Chin Ah Kim. Thereafter, the trial judge rendered judgment declaring the accused not responsible for the crime, and dismissing the case, but requiring the reclusion of the accused for treatment in San Lazaro Hospital, in accordance with article 8 of the Penal Code, with the admonition that the accused be not permitted to leave the said institution without first obtaining the permission of the court. In compliance with this order, Chan Sam was confined for approximately two years in San Lazaro Hospital. During this period, efforts to obtain his release were made induced by the desire of his wife and father-in-law to have him proceed to Hongkong. Opposition to the allowance of the motions came from the wife and children of the murdered man, who contended that Chan Sam was still insane, and that he had made threats that if he ever obtained his liberty he would kill the wife and the children of the deceased and probably other members of his own family who were living in Hongkong. These various legal proceedings culminated in Doctors Domingo and De los Angeles being delegated to examine and certify the mental condition of Chan Sam, which they did. After this report had been submitted, counsel for the oppositors challenged the jurisdiction of the court. However, the respondent judge sustained the court's right to make an order in the premises and allowed Chan Sam to leave the San Lazaro Hospital to be turned over to the attorney-in-fact of his wife so that he might be taken to Hongkong to join his wife in that city.

Article 8 of the Penal Code, pursuant to which the trial judge purported to act in issuing his order of release, provides that among those exempt from criminal liability are:

Section 1048 of the Administrative Code, which, it is argued, has superseded or supplemented article 8 of the Penal Code, provides as to the discharge of a patient from custody from a hospital for the insane the following:

An examination of article 8, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code discloses that the permission of the court who orders the confinement of one accused of a grave felony in an insane asylum is a prerequisite for obtaining release from the institution. The respondent judge has based his action in this case on this provision of the law. On the other hand, section 1048 of the Administrative Code grants to the Director of Health authority to say when a patient may be discharged from an insane asylum. There is no pretense that the Director of Health has exercised his authority in this case, or that the head of the Philippine Health Service has been asked to express his opinion.

Contrasting the two provisions of Philippine law which have been mentioned, it is self-evident that for section 1048 of the Administrative Code to prevail exclusively it would be necessary to find an implied repeal of a portion of article 8 of the Penal Code. But it is a well-known rule of statutory construction that when there is no express repeal none is presumed to be intended. The most reasonable supposition is that when the Legislature placed the provision, from which section 1048 of the Administrative Code was derived, on the statute books, it did so without any consideration as to the effect of the new law on article 8 of the Penal Code. It is likewise a canon of statutory construction that when two portions of the law can be construed so that both can stand together, this should be done. In this respect, we believe that the authority of the courts can be sustained in cases where the courts take action, while the authority of the Director of Health can be sustained in other cases not falling within the jurisdiction of the courts. This latter construction is reinforced by that portion of section 1048 of the Administrative Code which requires the Director of Health to notify the Judge of First Instance who ordered the commitment, in case the patients is confined by order of the court.

In 1916, the Director of Health raised this same question. He then took the view that section 7 of Act No. 2122, now incorporated in the Administrative Code as section 1048, applied to all cases of confinement of persons adjudged to be insane in any Government hospital or other places for the insane, and that the entire discretion as to the sanity of any patient whatever was vested by this section exclusively in the Director of Health. The Attorney-General, who at that time was Honorable Ramon Avanceña, ruled against the Director of Health, saying that "the Legislature could not have intended to vest in the Director of Health the power to release, without proper judicial authority, any person confined by order of the court in an asylum pursuant to the provisions of article 8 of the Penal Code."

In at least two cases, United States vs. Guendia ([1917], 37 Phil., 337), and People vs. Bascos ([1922], 44 Phil., 204), this court has relied on article 8, paragraph 1, of the Penal Code. The judgments in the cited cases concluded with this order: "The defendant shall be kept in confinement in the San Lazaro Hospital, or such other hospital for the insane as the Director of Health may direct, and shall not be permitted to depart therefrom without the prior approval of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Iloilo (Pangasinan)."

Due to differences in statutory provisions, the American authorities on the question are not very helpful. However, one case has been found where the facts were practically identical with the ones before us, where the law is much the same as Philippine Law, and where the procedure which should be followed was outlined by the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. We refer to the case of State vs. Snell ([1908], 49 Wash., 177). In the decision in the cited case, the court, speaking through Justice Rudkin, said:

The foregoing is our understanding of the law on the subject. The following represents our deductions and conclusions. Article 8 of the Penal Code has not been impliedly repealed by section 1048 of the Administrative Code. Article 8 of the Penal Code and section 1048 of the Administrative Code can be construed so that both can stand together. Considering article 8 of the Penal Code as in force and construing this article and section 1048 of the Administrative Code, we think that the Attorney-General was right in expressing the opinion that the Director of Health was without power to release, without proper judicial authority, any person confined by order of the court in an asylum pursuant to the provisions of article 8 of the Penal Code. We think also that the converse proposition is equally tenable, and is that any person confined by order of the court in an asylum in accordance with article 8 of the Penal Code cannot be discharged from custody in an insane asylum until the views of the Director of Health have been ascertained as to whether or not the person is temporarily or permanently cured or may be released without danger. In other words, the powers of the courts and the Director of Health are complementary each with the other. As a practical observation, it may further be said that it is well to adopt all reasonable precautions to ascertain if a person confined in an asylum as insane should be permitted to leave the asylum, and this can best be accomplished through the joint efforts of the courts and the Director of Health in proper cases.

Various defenses were interposed by the respondents to the petition, but we have not been impressed with any of them except the ones which go to the merits. After thorough discussion, our view is that while the respondent Judge acted patiently and cautiously in the matters which came before him, yet he exceeded his authority when he issued his orders of December 26, 1929, and March 17, 1930, without first having before him the opinion of the Director of Health.

The writ prayed for will issue and the temporary restraining order will be made permanent, without costs.

Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.