People V Vera Case Digest 344q2d

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and the HONG KONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION (HSBC) v. JOSE VERA, Judge ad interim of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and MARIANO CU UNJIENG (65 Phil 56) November 16, 1937 FACTS: - The criminal case, People v. Cu Unjieng was filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) in Manila, with HSBC intervening in the case as private prosecutor. - The CFI rendered a judgment of conviction sentencing Cu Unjieng to an indeterminate penalty ranging from four years and two months of prision correccional to eight years of prison mayor. (Jan. 8, 1934) - Upon appeal, it was modified to an indeterminate penalty of from five years and six months of prison correccional to seven years, six months and twenty-seven days of prison mayor, but affirmed the judgments in all other respects. - Cu Unjieng filed a Motion for Reconsideration and four successive motions for new trial which were all denied on December 17, 1935. Final judgment was entered on Dec. 18, 1935. He filed for certiorari to the Supreme Court but got denied on Nov 1936. The SC subsequently denied Cu Unjieng’s petition for leave to file a second alternative motion for reconsideration or new trial, then remanded the case to the court of origin for execution of judgment. - Cu Unjieng filed an application for probation before the trial court, under the provisions of Act 4221 of the defunct Philippine Legislature. He states he is innocent of the crime; he has no criminal record; and that he would observe good conduct in the future. - CFI Manila Judge Jose Vera set the petition for hearing for probation on April 5, 1937. - HSBC questioned the authority of Vera to hold such hearings and assailed the constitutionality of the Probation Act since it violates the equal protection of laws and gives unlawful and improper delegation to provincial boards. - Section 11 of Art 4221 states that the act shall only be applied in those provinces wherein the probationary officer is granted salary not lower than provincial fiscals by respective provincial boards. - The City Fiscal of Manila files a supplementary petition affirming issues raised by HSBC, arguing that probation is a form of reprieve, hence Act 4221 byes this exclusive power of the Chief Executive. - Hence this petition in the Supreme Court.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the constitutionality of Act 4221 has been properly raised in these proceedings; 2. If in the affirmative, whether or not Act 4221 is constitutional based on these three grounds: a. It encroaches upon the pardoning power of the executive b. It constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power c. It denies the equal protection of the laws

HELD/RATIO: 1. Yes. Constitutional questions will not be determined by the courts unless properly raised and presented in appropriate cases and is necessary to a determination of the case, lis mota. Constitutionality issues may be raised in prohibition and certiorari proceedings, as they may also be raised in mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus proceedings. The general rule states

that constitutionality should be raised in the earliest possible opportunity (during proceedings in initial/inferior courts). It may be said that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws, as in this case. The well-settled rule is that the person impugning validity must have personal and substantial interest in the case (i.e. he has sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result of its enforcement). If Act 4221 is unconstitutional, the People of the Philippines have substantial interest in having it set aside. 2. a. No. There exists a distinction between pardon and probation. Pardoning power is solely within the power of the Executive. Probation has an effect of temporary suspension, and the probationer is still not exempt from the entire punishment which the law inflicts upon him as he remains to be in legal custody for the time being. b. Yes. The Probation Act does not lay down any definite standards by which the istrative boards may be guided in the exercise of discretionary powers, hence they have the power to determine for themselves, whether or not to apply the law or not. This therefore becomes a surrender of legislative power to the provincial boards. It is unconstitutional. c. Yes. Due to the unwarranted delegation of legislative power, some provinces may choose to adopt the law or not, thus denying the equal protection of laws. It is unconstitutional.