4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly temporary visitor. A few days later, he was arrested by several policemen, who turned him over to the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID). Petitioner was duly charged. In due course, the BID Board of Commissioners issued a Summary Deportation Order dated November 25, 1998, finding him guilty of possessing a tampered passport earlier cancelled by Taiwanese authorities. On December 11, 1998, petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila a Petition for Habeas Corpus on the ground that his detention was illegal. In their Return of Writ, respondents denied petitioner's claim. In a Decision dated January 7, 1999, the trial court granted his Petition and ordered his release. In its January 29, 1999 Order, it denied respondents' Motion for Reconsideration. Respondents, who received the trial court's January 29, 1999 Order on February 11, 1999, then filed a Notice of Appeal on February 16, 1999. In an Order dated February 18, 1999, the RTC rejected petitioner's Opposition and granted due course to the Notice of Appeal. Subsequently, the appellate court rendered its July 30, 1999 Decision, which as earlier mentioned reversed the trial court. Meanwhile, during the pendency of the proceedings before the CA, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari[7] before this Court, docketed as GR No. 137571, contending that the RTC should have rejected the appeal for allegedly being filed late -- beyond the 48hour period provided under the pre-1997 Rules of Court. In its September 21, 2000 Decision which became final on October 31, 2000,[8] this Court denied the Petition. Ruling of the Court of Appeals The appellate court held that petitioner was not entitled to the writ of habeas corpus, because the BID Board of Commissioners had found him guilty of violating Section 37 (a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended. Citing documents from the Taiwan Economic and Cultural Offices (TECO), the CA found that petitioner's passport had been cancelled by the Republic of China on the ground that its holder was not the real Tung Chin Hui, but a fugitive from justice who had tampered the passport. The CA also held that the TECO documents, being public in nature, need not be testified to by the persons who had issued them. Hence, this Petition.[9] The Issues In his Memorandum, petitioner submits the following issues for the consideration of this Court:[10] "A. PRINCIPAL ISSUES: (1) Is the reglementary period within which to appeal in habeas https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/51129 2/10