Sia  Pag,  a 15-year old Chinese girl,  instituted  these habeas corpus proceedings through Jose  Fernandez Uy Tana,  to obtain the annulment of the decision rendered by the respondent Insular Collector of  Customs ordering her deportation, and  to obtain her liberty.

The court of origin found that the petitioner had not been  given  a fair,  full  and  impartial  hearing by the board of special inquiry, and that both the latter and the respondent  exceeded their authority and discretion, and ordered both to grant  the petitioner a new hearing.  The respondent appealed, and the Attorney-General, who represents him in this instance, makes the following assignment of errors:

"I. The lower court erred in  ordering a, new hearing when such remedy was  not even invoked by the appellee after the  decision  of the respondent-appellant was handed down confirming the recommendation of the board of special inquiry ordering the deportation of the Chinese girl, Sia Pag, on the ground that she had secured her landing in the Philippine Islands  through fraudulent representations.

"II. The lower court erred in allowing, over the objection of counsel for respondent-appellant, attorney Ernesto Zaragoza to testify on  facts not appearing in the record of the proceedings had before the board of special inquiry  (Exhibit A), and in basing its decision on the said testimony of attorney Zaragoza to the effect that the said Sia Pag was not granted a full, complete, and impartial hearing.

"III.  The lower  court erred in not dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus."

The material facts, as they appear from the agreed statement of facts made by both parties and from the proceedings of the  board, are as follows:

On September 22, 1930, the petitioner arrived at the Port of Manila on board the steamship Susana from Amoy, China.   On the 24th of the same month, a board of special inquiry passed upon her  right to  enter and found that she was entitled to reside in the country as the minor daughter of her  father, Sia  Hoat Lian, a Chinese merchant, with a certificate of residence, Exhibit E.  On the 17th of December of  the same year, having received  complaints to the effect that the petitioner was engaged in  prostitution, the respondent issued a warrant for her arrest, Exhibit B, and ordered the board of  special inquiry to  inquire into the truth of  the charges.   The petitioner was detained and submitted to an investigation during which she was  represented by attorney  Ernesto Zaragoza;  evidence  was taken, and as it failed to prove her guilty of the immoral conduct imputed to her, the board sought evidence within that investigation to show that she had obtained a  certificate  of  residence  through false   representations or fraud; and, without  first  informing her of this new accusation or giving her an opportunity to defend herself and adduce rebuttal evidence, found her guilty of this  new charge,  and recommended that she be deported at the  first opportunity.   The  respondent, as  Insular   Collector of Customs, adopted the  recommendation, found the petitioner guilty of having  obtained a  certificate of residence by fraud, and ordered her immediate  deportation.

The objection of the petitioner's  counsel to the consideration of any evidence tending to show the new accusation or any other sort of  that  set forth in the warrant of arrest which served as a complaint or denunciation, and  the rulings of the board are found  in the minutes of the same, as follows:

"Note  by Attorney Zaragoza
'The detained herein is being investigated because she is supposed to be dedicated to prostitution as per information given me that the warrant of arrest says so.  If this is the case, I oppose to all or object to all questions that may not have direct connection with the case under which she is being investigated.

"The board: Objection denied.  The last question is not impertinent as it  may lead  to the determination of the question as to whether or not the girl is engaged in prostitution.  The detained may answer the question.

"Attorney Zaragoza: Exception.  I ask for the reconsideration of the preceding resolution of the board unless the member who asked the question specifies the reason or reasons of the question, or its object.

"The board: Objection denied.  The detained may answer the question."

In the board's report, also,  the following, among  other findings, appear:

"The board has made a careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of this case and has found nothing of record to substantiate the charges that the girl in  question was engaged in prostitution in the City of Manila. There is no proof that the girl had ever plied this disgraceful trade.   The only evidence which would cast some doubt upon the reputation of the girl was the testimony of agents Lazcanotegui and Tan  Heng that she lived in  the  New Chicago Hotel  with a Chinese person named  E. C.  Lim, but this statement has not been substantiated as Lazcanotegui and Tan Heng did not have a chance to see the girl and her companion and were not able to effect the arrest in  said  hotel.   Furthermore,  these two  customs secret service agents,  according to their own testimony, had no information at all that the girl in question was leading an unclean and immoral life.  The board is,  therefore, of the  opinion that  the charges of prostitution preferred against the girl have not been established, and it is believed that it would be a miscarriage of justice  and a violation of law to deport her on  this ground.

"In the course of investigation, however, another aspect of the case  has  presented  itself  which, in our minds, deserves serious consideration.   We refer to various discrepancies in the statement  of the girl in these proceedings as compared with her testimony at the time of her landing on September 24, 1930.  (C. B. R. No. 3646-3.)

"In view of the foregoing, the board finds that she is not the minor daughter of Sia Hoat Lian, a resident Chinese merchant, and that she succeeded in securing her landing as  such  daughter through false representations.  It  is, therefore, recommended that she be deported to China by the first available transportation under  the provisions of section  19 of the Immigration  Act of February 5, 1917."

And in the decision of the respondent, the following statements are likewise found:

"This case coming on for determination  by the undersigned in  his official capacity as Insular Collector of Customs, and  it appearing that warrant of arrest  No.  1884 was duly issued by the Insular  Collector of Customs at Manila, P." I.,  on December 17,  1930, charging that the above-mentioned alien is  engaged in prostitution,  in  violation of the Act of Congress of February 5,  1917,  and commanding that she be brought before a board  of special inquiry sitting at this port for an investigation of the question as to  whether she ought to  be deported  from the Philippine Islands, and it appearing further that the above-mentioned  alien was duly taken into custody by  authority of said  warrant of arrest and  brought before  such board of special inquiry, duly appointed, and that she was given a hearing before  such board, and having full  opportunity to show cause why she should not be deported, and the said board having kept a record of the proceedings of said hearing, including all of the minutes of the testimony taken and other evidence offered, and the  board having duly reported its  findings and recommendation  in  the  matter, and the said record having been duly forwarded to the undersigned to determine whether or not a warrant of deportation  shall issue; Now, therefore, after reviewing the said record and considering all  the facts and circumstances  of the matter, and being  fully advised  in the premises, it is found  and determined:

"That the Sia Pag is a  resident of this country, holder of  landing  certificate of  residence;  that the  charges of prostitution preferred against  her have  not been established,  but that she succeeded  in securing her  landing as the minor daughter  of Sia Hoat  Lian, a resident Chinese merchant,  through false  representations.

"Wherefore, it is adjudged and decided:

"That the said Sia Pag has  entered this  country unlawfully, in violation of section 19 of the Act  of  Congress, approved February 5, 1917."

It will be observed that in both documents the following points are acknowledged to be true: (a) That the petitioner had  obtained a certificate of  residence which authorized her to live  in this country;  (b) that such certificate had not been cancelled;  (c) that the petitioner was  submitted to investigation  upon the charge of prostitution; (d)  that the evidence did not establish the charge, for which reason the board recommended that she be exonerated, as indeed, she was,  by the respondent; and (e) that in the same investigation,  and without the  filing of any charge or  complaint to that effect, but realizing that the charge of immorality had  failed  for  lack  of proof,  the board,  without being authorized by the Insular Collector  of Customs,  sought evidence against the petitioner  in  spite of the vigorous protest and  objection of the latter's counsel, and finding it sufficient to show that  she had obtained her certificate of residence by means of false representations, recommended her deportation.

One thing stands out in the consideration  of this case, and  that is, that the respondent and the  board  did not inform the  petitioner or  her counsel of the nature of the accusation of which she  was later  found guilty, and for which she is to be deported.  Legally, she was deprived of a substantial right to the extent of being denied a fair, full, and impartial hearing.  No such hearing could have been  given   at  the  investigation made by the board of special inquiry  of the petitioner, wherein she  was not informed of the nature  of the  accusation, evidence was taken to  support an accusation different  from that charged to her over the objection and protest of her counsel, she was not  given an opportunity to defend herself, and, finally, she was found guilty of a violation entirely different from that which gave rise to the proceeding.  The investigation was not made to determine the  petitioner's right to enter and remain in this country,  where the burden of proof was upon her, but to inquire whether she was guilty of prostitution and had violated section  19 of the Act of the United States Congress of February 5, 1917.   For this reason,  the offense  imputed to the petitioner had to be proved by  the complainant, the Insular Collector of Customs, who issued  the  warrant of arrest, or the board of special inquiry itself.

Investigations made by the boards  appointed by the Insular Collector of Customs to determine the right of an alien to enter and reside in the country,  and to try violations of the Immigration Law with  a view  to deporting the offender,  are  quasi-judicial,  and we have so held in several  cases.  In  Bayani vs. Collector  of Customs (37 Phil., 468), we  said:

"An alien seeking to enter territory of the United States, even though the hearing is summary, is entitled to a free, full, and  fair hearing before he is  denied  the  right to enter.  The right to a hearing includes the right to have the  evidence  considered by the  board.  He is not  only entitled to  have the evidence which he presents considered, but he is  entitled  to present all of the evidence which he has  and which is  germane to the question of his right to enter.  While the board of special inquiry is not technically a judicial body and the procedure is not technically judicial, nor are the proceedings defined by any particular rules or statutes, nevertheless, the  board is required,  under the procedure  which it  adopts, to give the  immigrant  or the alien an opportunity  to show by proof that his request should be granted.   (Edwards vs. McCoy, 22 Phil.,  598.)"

And in the same case of Bayani, supra (p. 471), it was also held:

"While the hearings before the board of special inquiry are summary in that no special pleadings,  etc., are required, they are, nevertheless,  judicial in character, and the persons tried by such a board  are entitled to a full, free,  and fair hearing just as in  any  other cases  where the  rights of individuals are being inquired into.   Such individuals have the right to be represented by an attorney, if they so desire. They have a right to present  witnesses  to support their request to  enter.  Their attorney has a  right to present whatever pertinent questions he may  desire to such witnesses, as will demonstrate or will tend to show the right of  the  immigrant  to  enter  the country.  (Edwards vs. McCoy, 22 Phil., 598;  Ang  Eng Chong vs.  Collector  of Customs, 23 Phil., 614; Go Kiam vs. Collector of Customs, G. R. No. 7099; Loo Bun Hian vs.  Collector  of Customs, G. R. No.  7074;  Lim Yiong  vs. Collector of  Customs,  36 Phil., 424;  Ex parte Lam Pui, 217 Fed. Rep., 456; Jouras vs.  Allen,  222  Fed. Rep.,  756; U.  S.  vs.  Ruiz, 23  Fed. Rep., 431 [?]; Ex  parte Petkos, 212  Fed.  Rep., 275; Ex parte Ung  King Ieng, 213 Fed. Rep.,  119;  Lim Ching vs. Collector of  Customs, 33 Phil.,  186;  Ex parte Gregory, 210 Fed. Rep., 680; Louie Dai vs. U.  S., 238 Fed. Rep., 68,  74; Ex parte Lee Dung Moo, 230  Fed.  Rep., 746; Ex parte Tom Toy Tin,  230 Fed.  Rep., 747; Ex parte Chin Loy You, 223 Fed. Rep., 883; Ex parte Wong Foo, 230 Fed. Rep.,  534.)"

It is  therefore clear that,  since the petitioner was not previously  informed of the nature  of the  accusation for which her deportation was ordered, since she was submitted to an investigation  based upon an entirely different ground from that which  gave rise to the proceeding,  without giving her an opportunity to defend herself and to produce evidence, said petitioner was not afforded a fair, full and impartial hearing in accordance with the cases cited above, and the other cited therein.

In view of the  foregoing the third and last assignments of error made by the appellant  are refuted, and the second need not be considered.  With  regard  to  the first, we are of opinion  that the new hearing was properly ordered by the court a quo.   The Immigration Law does not prescribe the form in which a complaint or accusation for its violation is to be made, and it is sufficient if it so informs the defendant as to afford him an opportunity to defend himself and adduce evidence, if he wishes to do so.

The decision appealed from is affirmed, and it is ordered that the respondent grant a new hearing or re-investigation to the petitioner with the opportunity of presenting any evidence she may desire to avail herself of; without special pronouncement  of costs in this instance.   So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Malcolm,  Villamor, Romualdez, and  Villa-Real, JJ., concur.