CASE DIGEST FOR:
PEOPLE v VERA, 65 Phil 56
G.R. No. L-45685, November 16, 1937
FACTS:
1. Mariano Cu Unjieng was convicted of criminal charge in the Court of Manila
2. He filed several motions for reconsideration and new trial but were all denied. He also filed
for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States which was also denied. He then
again filed for succeeding petitions for motion for reconsideration for new trial and the court
sent back the case to its court of origin to execute the judgement of sending him to jail.
3. Mariano Cu Unjieng filed for motion for reconsideration for probation under the provision
of Act No. 4221. Judge Jose Vera of the 7th branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila
heard his petition and set the hearing.
4. The Fiscal of the City of Manila filed an opposition of said grant to Mariano Cu Unjieng’s
appeal and alleged that Act No. 4221, assuming that it has not been repealed by section 2 of
Article XV of the Constitution, is nevertheless violative of section 1, subsection (1), Article
III of the Constitution guaranteeing equal protection of the laws. The private prosecution
also filed a supplementary opposition, elaborating on the alleged unconstitutionality on Act
No. 4221, as an undue delegation of legislative power to the provincial boards of several
provinces (sec. 1, Art. VI, Constitution).
5. Petition of private prosecution also pointed out under Act No. 4221, Judge Jose Vera has no
jurisdiction over the case.
ISSUE:
WON there is undue delegation of legislative power as alleged by the private prosecution?
WON the act violates the equal protection of the laws
HELD:
The Supreme Court concluded that section 11 of Act No. 4221 is an improper and unlawful
delegation of legislative authority to the provincial boards hence unconstitutional and void since
there is no set standard provided by the Congress as to how the system of probation must be carried
out.
The act violates the provision of the Bill of Rights that mandates all human being to the equal
protection of the laws. In such a case, the Probation Act would be in operation in one province but
not in the other. One person in one province would enjoy the benefits of probation but it will not
be the same for the other. This would then be discrimination.