Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-5522 December 21, 1933
In the matter of the petition for naturalization of LEONCIO HO BENLUY. LEONCIO HO BENLUY, petitioners-appellant,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.
Adolfo Garcia for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag and Solicitor Pacifico P. de Castro for appellee.
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
The appellant Leoncio Ho. Benluy, a Chinese citizen, filed an application for naturalization in 1951. There was no opposition to the application on the part of the Government. At the hearing the applicant presented evidence in support of his application, including two character witnesses, one of them Atty. Marcial M. Anastacio, a resident of Obando, Bulacan. With one exception Benluy proved that he possessed all the disqualifications for and the trial court so found. The exception is that Atty. Anastacio, one of his witnesses, in his endeavor, even enthusiasm to prove that the applicant had identified himself with the Filipinos, helped them when asked and was very congenial and friendly, said that Benluy even took part in two electoral campaigns in Bulacan, not only persuading some voters connected with his business but also contributing to the campaign fund of the Liberal party. Said the trial court on this point:
To prove that the applicant is a strong believer in our constitution and in what is called "free enterprise", this witness emphasized this affirmation by stating that the applicant even went to the extent of taking active part during the elections, so much so that he (applicant) gave financial contribution to be spent in the election campaign to this witness who, during the elections f 1947 and 1949, was the Campaign Manager of the Liberal Party in the municipality of Obando Bulacan; that the applicant, aside from giving financial help during the said elections f 1947 and 1949 which amended to P200 and P500 on two occasions, went with the witness to Obando to talk personally with his sub-agents in said municipality, an due to this intervention of the applicant said sub-agents supported the party of Mr. Anastacio.lawphil.net
This evidence about the part played by the applicants in the past elections alerted the representatives of the Solicitor General and after the trial he filed a strong written opposition to the granting of the application, resulting in the trial court denying the application, resulting in the trial court denying the application for naturalization.
Considering the circumstances under which the evidence of applicant's political activities was presented, namely that it did not come from the opposition or any other party but himself and through his own witness, we were at the beginning inclined not to attach much importance to that phrase of his residence in the Philippines and association with the Filipinos. He was never prosecuted for that violation of Election Code and even if the Government were now inclined to prosecute him, the offense has already prescribed. Furthermore, as already stated, in all other respects the applicant has established his qualifications and the absence of any disqualification. However, the law is clear. Section 56 of the Revised Election Code reads —
SEC. 56. Active intervention of foreigners. — No foreigner shall aid any candidate, directly or indirectly, or take part in or to influence in any manner any election.
Under section 183 of the same Code, the violation is considered a serious election offense and under section 185 it is penalized with imprisonment of not less than on a year and one day but not more than five years and in case of a foreigner, shall in addition be sentenced to deportation for not less than five years but not more than ten years, to be enforced after the prison term has been served. These provisions of the Revised Election Code may not be taken lightly, much less ignored. They were intended to discourage foreigners from taking active part in or otherwise interfering with our elections, under penalty not only of imprisonment but also deportation. It might well be that as already stated, the evidence about this violation of the election law was given by his own witness who in all likelihood gave it in good faith and in all friendship to the applicant to bolster the latters application for naturalization, without realizing that by said declaration he was forever closing the door to Benluy's ever becoming a Filipino citizen. But the law must be applied and enforced. It is merely a piece of bad luck for him. From the standpoint of the Government however, it was fortunate that said evidence was brought up, to a foreigner who tho even in his ignorance of the law and at the instance of his Filipino friends, violated one of the important provisions of our election law. The decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs.
Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista and Labrador, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
