Title
People vs. Vera
Case
G.R. No. 45685
Decision Date
Nov 16, 1937
A 1937 Philippine Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality of the Probation Act (Act No. 4221), which allowed provincial boards to determine its applicability, leading to unequal treatment and unlawful delegation of legislative power. The Court ruled the Act unconstitutional, voiding it entirely.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 45685)

Procedural History

• October 15, 1931: Information filed; H&S Bank intervened as private prosecutor.
• January 8, 1934: CFI Manila convicts Cu Unjieng—indeterminate term (4 years 2 months to 8 years), reserves civil action.
• March 26, 1935: Appellate court modifies sentence (5 years 6 months to 7 years 6 months 27 days), affirms otherwise.
• December 17–18, 1935: Motions denied; final judgment entered.
• November 1936: U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari; petition for second reconsideration denied; case remanded for execution.

Probation Application and Opposition

• November 27, 1936: Cu Unjieng applies for probation under Act No. 4221 (Probation Law).
• June 18, 1937: Insular Probation Office recommends denial.
• April 5, 1937: Hearing set; City Fiscal and private prosecutor oppose, raising
– Non-applicability of Act No. 4221 to chartered cities, including Manila.
– Equal-protection and undue-delegation constitutional objections to section 11.
• June 28, 1937: Judge Vera finds reasonable doubt on guilt but denies probation on public-policy grounds.

Post-Resolution Motions and Amici Curiae Activity

• Early July 1937: Motions for reconsideration/new trial filed; amici curiae intervention motion by 34 attorneys emerges, then partially withdrawn.
• August 6–10, 1937: City Fiscal moves for execution of final judgment; private prosecutor opposes amici intervention; hearing scheduled for August 14, then August 21, 1937.
• August 19–21, 1937: Petitioners file original action in Supreme Court seeking certiorari and prohibition to halt further proceedings on probation application. Temporary restraining order issued.

Grounds for Extraordinary Relief

  1. CFI lacks jurisdiction to place Cu Unjieng on probation because Act No. 4221:
    a. Applies only in provinces that appropriate salary for a probation officer.
    b. Does not extend to chartered cities absent such appropriation.
  2. Upon denial of probation, CFI had no power to entertain motions for reconsideration or rehearing; must commit defendant.
  3. Judicial finding of innocence contravenes final Supreme Court judgment.
  4. Duty to enforce final commitment was violated.

Respondents’ Defenses

• Petition premature; remedy in trial court not exhausted.
• Trial court has exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction over probation and execution issues.
• Lower-court resolution denying probation is appealable.
• Where order is non-appealable, proper remedy is certiorari with mandamus after specifying error.
• Trial court retains inherent power to modify or correct its final order.
• Act No. 4221 is constitutional: no undue delegation, no equal-protection violation, no executive-pardon encroachment.
• Private prosecution lacked standing to raise constitutional objections below.

Jurisdictional and Constitutional Threshold

• Constitutional challenges may be raised in original certiorari and prohibition when plain, speedy, adequate remedy lacking and question essential.
• Petition to void Act No. 4221 properly before Supreme Court despite trial-court declination.
• People of the Philippine Islands (through Solicitor-General and City Fiscal) have standing to challenge their own law.

Probation vs. Pardon

• Pardoning power vested in Chief Executive (then Governor-General under Jones Law); probation distinct, judicially conferred by statute, not an executive reprieve or commutation.
• U.S. precedents (Ex parte United States 242 U.S. 27) recognize federal probation statutes as valid exercise of legislative power to define and limit penal punishments.
• Probation law does not infringe executive’s pardon prerogative; courts merely defer sentence under conditions.

Undue Delegation of Legislative Power

• Section 11 of Act No. 4221 makes operation of law contingent on each provincial board’s appropriation for a probation officer’s salary, vesting in them absolute, standardless discretion to apply or withhold the law.
• This impermissible delegation offends separation of powers




...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms