PEOPLE vs VERA

65 Phil 56 (1937)
November 16, 1937
Laurel, J.

SUBJECT MATTER:
Requisites of Judicial Review > Government Standing

LEGAL BASIS AND APPLICABLE CONCEPT(S):

Section 11 of Act No. 4221

SECTION 11. This Act shall apply only in those provinces in which the respective provincial boards have provided
for the salary of a probation officer at rates not lower than those now provided for provincial fiscals. Said probation officers
shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice and shall be subject to the direction of the Probation Office.

Concept of Probation or Suspension of Sentence:

- A judicial power
- Simply postpones the judgment of the court temporarily or indefinitely but the conviction and liability following it
and all civil disabilities remain and become operative when judgment is rendered

Concept of Reprieves and Pardons:

- An executive power
- Reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offense and the guilt of the offender. It releases the punishment
and blots out of existence the guilt so that in the eyes of the law, the offender is innocent as if he had never
committed the offense. It removes the penalties and disabilities and restores him all his civil rights.

ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

ORIGINAL ACTION IN THE SUPREME COURT. CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION.
Petitioner(s): People of the Philippine Islands and The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation
Parties
Respondent( Hon. Jose O. Vera (Jude ad interim of the 7th branch of the Court of First Instance of
s): Manila)

SUMMARY:
The case filed in the supreme court is an action filing a writ of certiorari and a writ of prohibition against Judge Vera.
This case against Judge Vera was brought about because he kept accepting the appeals for reconsideration by a
convicted person despite Vera promulgating a ruling for a criminal case wherein he had already denied the convict’s
petition for probation. More specifically, this case is dealing with the ruling of Judge Vera regarding the appeal of
Mariano Cu Unjieng for probation under the provisions of Act No. 4221. Mariano Cu Unjieng is the defendant in the case
of “People of the Philippines vs Mariano Cu Unjieng, et. al.”

In short, na-bwisit si HSBC and People of the PH sa delaying tactics ni Vera at ni Mariano kaya inakyat nila sa Supreme
Court.

ANTECEDENT FACTS:
● Oct 15, 1931: Criminal Case against Mariano Cu Unjieng was filed with the Court of FIrst Instance of Manila.
Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) is intervening in the case as a private prosecutor.

C2023(BONAMY) - CONSTI1, GATMAYTAN

● January 8, 1934: CFI Manila rendered judgment sentencing Mariano Cu Unjieng to an indeterminate penalty
ranging from 4 years and 2 months of prison correccional to 8 years of prison mayor and to pay the costs and with
reservation of civil action to HSBC.
● March 26, 1935: Upon appeal, CFI modified the sentence to an indeterminate penalty of from 5 years and 6
months of prison correccional to 7 years 6 months and 27 days of prison mayor; but affirmed judgment in all other
aspects
● December 1935: Mariano filed a motion for reconsideration and filed 4 successive motions for new trial-- all
rejected on December 17, 1935.
● December 18, 1935: Final Judgement was rendered
● Mariano brought up the case to the US Supreme Court through certiorari but it got rejected on November 1936
● November 24, 1936: The Supreme Court DENIED the petition filed by Mariano for leave to file a second
alternative motion for reconsideration or new trial and thereafter remanded the case to the court of origin for
execution of the judgement.
● November 27, 1936: Mariano filed an application for probation under the provisions of Act No. 4221 (AN
ACT ESTABLISHING PROBATION FOR PERSONS, EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE OR ABOVE, CONVICTED OF
CERTAIN CRIMES BY THE COURTS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; PROVIDING PROBATION OFFICERS
THEREFOR; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES) before the Trial Court.
○ Claims that he is innocent of the crime which he was convicted for
○ Claims he has no criminal record
○ Claims that he would observe goof conduct in the future
● JUDGE VERA set the petition hearing of Mariano’s application for probation on April 5, 1937.
● April 2, 1937: the Fiscal of the City of Manila filed an OPPOSITION to the granting of probation to Mariano
● April 5, 1937: HSBC filed an opposition alleging:
○ Act No. 4221, assuming it has not been repealed by Section 2 of Article XV of the 1935 Constitution, is
violative of Section 1 subsection (1) of Article III of the 1935 Constitution. Section 1 subsection (1) of
Article III of the 1935 Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws.
○ Section 11 of Act No. 4221 endows the provincial boards with the power to make the law effective or
otherwise in their respective provinces; thus violating Section 1 subsection (1) of Article III of the 1935
Constitution
● April 19, 1937: HSBC filed a supplementary opposition elaborating the alleged unconstitutionality of Act No. 4221
as an undue delegation of legislative power to the provincial boards of several provinces.
● June 28, 1937: Judge Vera concludes that Mariano is innocent of the crimes he is accused of but denied the
petition for probation.
● July 13, 1937: Marciano’s counsel files for an exception to the resolution denying the probation along with a notice
of intention to file a motion for reconsideration. The counsel files said motion for reconsideration or new trial on
July 13, 1937.
● The motion for reconsideration was set for hearing on July 31, 1937.
● The counsel of Mariano had the hearing postponed because a motion for leave to intervene as amici curiae
signed by 33 attorneys had just been filed with the trial court.
● August 1, 1937: HSBC filed an opposition to the motion for leave to intervene as amici curiae, asking that the date
be set for the hearing of the motion for reconsideration and that the motion to intervene should be denied.
● August 6, 1937: The Fiscal of the City of Manila filed a motion with the trial court for the issuance of an order of
execution of the judgement of this court in said case and forthwith to commit Mariano to jail in obedience to the
resolution by the Court of First Instance.
● August 14, 1937: The respondent judge set the hearing for the motion of the execution of the punishment on
August 21, 1937.
● The petitioners, at this point, wanted to put an end to Mariano’s delaying tactics by approaching the Supreme
Court with a petition for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of certiorari and writ of prohibition. The petitioners
allege:
○ Judge Vera has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of his jurisdiction
■ Vera lacks jurisdiction to place Mariano under probation on the following grounds:

C2023(BONAMY) - CONSTI1, GATMAYTAN

 ● Sec 11 of Act No. 4221 is made to apply only to the provinces of the Philippines; NOT
City of Manila
● Although Sec. 37 of the Administrative Code contains a provision that the term “province”
may be construed to include the city of Manila for the purpose of giving effect to laws of
general application, Act No. 4221 is NOT a law of general application
● Even if the city of Manila was considered a province, Act No. 4221 is still not applicable
because the city has NOT provided for the salary of a probation officer as required by
section 11 of Act No. 4221.
○ Even if Vera originally had jurisdiction to entertain an application for probation of Mariano, he still acted
without jurisdiction or in excess thereof in continuing to entertain the motion for reconsideration and
by failing to commit Mariano to prison after he had promulgated a resolution convicting Mariano
to jail on June 28, 1937.
■ Vera had already denied Mariano’s petition for probation on June 28, 1937. It became final and
executory at the moment of its rendition. No right of appeal exists in such cases. Vera lacks the
power to grant a modification of his own resolution dated June 28, 1937.
○ Vera’s finding of Mariano to be innocent of the crime for which he had been convicted by final judgment of
the Trial Court is without foundation in fact nor in law. It is furthermore in contempt of the Trial Court and a
violation of Vera’s oath to the office as the ad interim judge of the CFI
● September 9, 1937: HSC filed a supplementary petition contending that Act No. 4221 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
because it is violative of Section 1 subsection (1) of Article III of the 1935 Constitution. Because the act confers
upon the provincial boards of the provinces of the Philippines the absolute discretion to make Act No. 4221
operative or not in their respective provinces. It constitutes an unlawful and improper delegation to the provincial
boards the legislative power lodged by the Jones law in the Philippine Legislature and by the Constitution in the
National Assembly. The act gives the CFIs of the different provinces a non-uniform power on whether or not to
apply Act No. 4221.
● September 14, 1937: Fiscal of the City of Manila, on behalf of the People of the Philippines, filed a supplementary
petition further elaborating on the unconstitutionality of Act No. 4221.
● Oct 6, 1937: Oral argument of the Fiscal of the City of Manila identified probation as a form of reprieve which
encroaches on the exclusive power of the Chief Executive to grant pardons and reprieves.

ISSUE(S) AND HOLDING(S):

1. WoN the constitutionality of Act No. 4221 has been properly raised in the proceedings -- YES, it has been
properly raised in the proceedings
a. WoN the petitioners have standing
2. WoN Act No. 4221 is constitutional -- NO, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
a. WoN the act encroaches on the pardoning power of the executive -- NO, it does not encroach on the
Executive’s power
b. WoN it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power -- YES, it does constitute an undue delegation
of legislative power
c. WoN it denies the equal protection of the laws -- it does not actively deny equal protection, but it allows it;
which is just as bad.
d. WoN the entire Act is unconstitutional or just Sec 11 of Act 4221 -- the entire act is unconstitutional.

RATIO:
1. For the court to weigh in on the constitutionality of an act, it must have properly presented in appropriate cases
and it must be the very lis mota of the case.
○ In the case at bar, the constitutional issue has been squarely raised both in the supreme court on behalf
of the People of the Philippines and the trial court by HSBC.
i. In the lower court; however, Judge Vera dismissed the question of constitutionality because it
was HSBC who raised the issue. The Judge deemed HSBC as NOT an interested part and
therefore did not rule on the constitutionality of the said act.
ii. It has been held, however, that since the decree pronounced by a court without jurisdiction is
void, where the jurisdiction of the court depends on the validity of the statute in question, the

C2023(BONAMY) - CONSTI1, GATMAYTAN

 issue of constitutionality will be considered on its being brought to the attention of the court by
persons interested in the effect to be given the statute. (they should’ve accepted the question of
constitutionality because HSBC is interested in the result and it may cause a very different
outcome. The jurisdiction of the trial court was based on the constitutionality of Act No. 4211)
iii. In any case, the issue of constitutionality can still be raised in an original action of certiorari and
prohibition
○ .WoN the petitioners have standing
i. The People of the Philippines, represented by the solicitor-general and the Fiscal of the City of
Manila, is such a proper party in the present proceedings.
ii. Act No. 4221, if violative of the Constitution, the People of the PH has a substantial interest in
having the Act set aside due to the following reasons:
1. Damage by the illegal expenditure of public funds
2. Mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statue
iii. General Rules
1. The state can challenge the validity of its own laws. The State is always interested where
the integrity of its constitution or statutes is involved.
2. The district attorney / solicitor-general is duty-bound to enforce laws. Therefore, if he
finds one in conflict of another or in conflict with the constitution, it is his duty to plead that
statute to be unconstitutional.
3. A judge should not judicially declare a statute unconstitutional until the question of
constitutionality is tendered for decision and unless it must be decided on in order to
determine the right of a party litigant.
iv. The respondent judge accepts these general rules but argues that the Fiscal of the City of Manila
is estopped from questioning the act’s constitutionality because the Act in question has been
repeatedly relied upon in the past and all that time the Fiscal of Manila has never questioned its
constitutionality.
1. The People of the PH are not estopped just because the Act in question has never been
doubted regarding its constitutionality before. In fact, it cannot be blamed for assuming its
constitutionality because the constitutionality an act is assumed until it is held void by the
courts of the PH.
○ WoN it is the lis mota of the case at hand
i. Yes, it is the lis mota because the entire premise of the respondent’s jurisdiction is relying on the
constitutionality of the act 4221
2. No, the Act No. 4221 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
○ Sec 21 of the Jones Law, which was in effect at the time of the approval of Act No. 4221, vests the
President of the PH the EXCLUSIVE power to grant pardons and reprieves and remit fines and forfeitures
i. The Constitution; however, dropped the term “exclusive” found in Jones Law.
ii. The framers of our Consti thought that the ability to pardon a criminal anytime before or after the
conviction of the suspect was undesirable and adjusted the pardoning power only to be allowed
AFTER conviction.
iii. The Legislature, like the Congress of the US, may legally enact a probation law under its broad
power to fix the punishment of any and all penal offenses.
○ Does Section 11 of Act No. 4221 constitute an undue delegation of legislative power?
i. As a rule, an act of legislature is INCOMPLETE and hence invalid, if it does not lay down any rule
or definite standard by which the administrative officer or board may be guided in the exercise of
the discretionary powers delegated to it.
ii. The Act in question does not fix and impose upon the provincial boards any standard or guide in
the exercise of their discretionary power
iii. The provincial boards are granted the ability to exercise arbitrary discretion by section 11 of the
act in question. The provincial boards are to determine for themselves whether or not the
probation law shall apply to their provinces or not simply by deciding whether or not to allocate a
budget for a probational officer. The provincial board can choose to do so one year and not do it
the next year and alternate thereon. This does NOT provide stability for the people of said

C2023(BONAMY) - CONSTI1, GATMAYTAN

 provinces. THUS, Sec 11 of Act 4221 allows the provincial boards to vest power of legislation is
such an unqualified manner.
iv. Sec 11 of Act 4211 consisting of an improper and unlawful delegation of legislative authority to
the provincial boards unconstitutional and void.
○ Does it violate the provision in our Bill of Rights which prohibits the denial to any person of the equal
protection of the laws?
i. Sec 11 of Act No. 4221 creates a situation wherein discrimination and inequality are allowed or
permitted. The inequality stems from the unwarranted delegation of legislative power.
ii. “We see no difference between a law which denies equal protection and a law which permits of
such denial”
○ Does the unconstitutionality of Sec 11 make the entire act 4211?
i. If the provision of an act is separable from the rest of its provisions and that the intent of the act is
still accomplishable without the unconstitutional provision, only the unconstitutional provision
should be declared void while the rest of the act is still valid.
ii. In this case; however, Sec 11 of Act 4211 is so integral to the rest of the act that the act does not
have any practical benefit without sec 11 of act 4211. Therefore, the entire act is declared void.

DISPOSITIVE:
ACT NO. 4221 is hereby declared unconstitutional and void and the writ of prohibition is, accordingly, granted. Without
any pronouncement regarding costs. So Ordered.

MAIN DISSENTING OPINION:

● NONE

C2023(BONAMY) - CONSTI1, GATMAYTAN