University of the Philippines College of Law

CJSE D2021

PEOPLE VS. VERA

Case Name (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HONG KONG & SHANGHAI BANK CORP v.
JOSE O. VERA, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and MARIANO CU UNJIENG)
Topic Judicial Review
Case No. |
GR No. 45685 | Nov. 16, 1937
Date
Ponente Laurel, J.
Petitioners herein are respectively the plaintiff and the offended party, and the
respondent herein Mariano Cu Unjieng is one of the defendants, in the criminal case
entitled "The People of the Philippine Islands vs. Mariano Cu Unjieng, et al.", criminal
Case Summary case No. 42649 of the Court of First Instance of Manila and G. R. No. 41200 of this
court. Respondent herein, Hon. Jose O. Vera, is the Judge ad interim of the seventh
branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila, who heard the application of the
defendant Mariano Cu Unjieng for probation in the aforesaid criminal case.
Articles 3 (Bill of Rights) and 8 (Judicial Department) of the 1935 Constitution

Act No. 4221 or the Probation Law which prescribes in detailed manner the procedure
Doctrine for granting probation to accused persons after their conviction has become final and
before they have served their sentence.

All laws and statures must uphold the constitution.

RELEVANT FACTS

● On January 8, 1934, rendered a judgment of conviction sentencing the defendant Mariano Cu

Unjieng to an indeterminate penalty ranging from four years and two months of prision correccional
to eight years of prison mayor, to pay the costs and with reservation of civil action to the offended
party, the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. Upon appeal, modified to five years and
six months to 7 years, 6 months and 25 days of prison mayor but affirmed judgement.

● Unjieng filed motion for reconsider but was denied.

● Unjieng wanted to have case elevated to on certiorari in but was denied along with second
alternative motion for consideration.

● He asserts his innocence and files an application for probation on Nov. 27, 1936.

● Judge Pero Tuason who was presiding referred application for probation to insular probation office
but this was later on denied.

● Court of First Instance of Manila, Judge Jose Vera presiding, set petition hearing concerning the
petition for probation. Scheduled hearing before trial court was suspended upon issuance of TOR.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CJSE D2021
0
● The private prosecution also filed a supplementary opposition on April 19, 1937, elaborating on the
alleged unconstitutionality of Act No. 4221, as an undue delegation of legislative power to the
provincial boards of several provinces (sec. 1, Art. VI, Constitution).

● On 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 judgment of this court in said case and forthwith to commit
the herein respondent Mariano Cu Unjieng to jail in obedience to said judgment

● Petitioners filed issuance of writs of certiorari and prohibition allege that judge has acted without
jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction since Section 11 of Act 4221 states that Legislature made
only to apply in provinces and not in Manila City.

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
Whether or not there YES.
was undue
delegation of powers SC conclude that section 11 of Act No. 4221 constitutes an improper and unlawful
delegation of legislative authority to the provincial boards and is, for this reason,
unconstitutional and void.

Act 4221 states that it shall only apply to provinces where the provincial boards
have provided probation officers, but it did not set to what standard they should
follow in determining whether or not to apply probation law in their province.
Whether or not said NO, it is unconstitutional.
Act is constitutional
Act No. 4221 of the Philippine Legislature providing for a system of probation for
persons eighteen years of age or over who are convicted of crime, is
unconstitutional because it is violative of section 1, subsection (1), Article III, of
the Constitution of the Philippines guaranteeing equal protection of the laws
because it confers upon the provincial board of each province the absolute
discretion to make said law operative or otherwise in their respective provinces,
because it constitutes an unlawful and improper delegation to the provincial
boards of the several provinces of the legislative power lodged by the Jones Law
(section 8), in the Philippine Legislature and by the Constitution (section 1, Art.
VI) in the National Assembly; and for the further reason that it gives the
provincial boards, in contravention of the Constitution (section 2, Art. VIII) and
the Jones Law (section 28), the authority to enlarge the powers of the Court of
First Instance of different provinces without uniformity.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CJSE D2021

RULING
Act No. 4221 is hereby declared unconstitutional and void and the writ of prohibition is,
accordingly, granted. Without any pronouncement regarding costs. So ordered.