Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 237 views

    People V Vera Digest

    Uploaded by

    Chrys Barcena
    Cu Unjieng was convicted of a crime in Manila but filed for reconsideration and probation while awaiting a new trial ordered by the Supreme Court. Judge Vera allowed Cu Unjieng's probation petition, but the city prosecutor argued this was unconstitutional as the probation law only applied to provinces. The Supreme Court agreed, finding the law violated equal protection by giving absolute discretion to provincial boards to decide probation access without standards. It also constituted undue delegation of legislative power. The Court declared the probation law unconstitutional for these reasons.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People V Vera Digest

    Uploaded by

    Chrys Barcena
    237 views2 pages
    Cu Unjieng was convicted of a crime in Manila but filed for reconsideration and probation while awaiting a new trial ordered by the Supreme Court. Judge Vera allowed Cu Unjieng's probation petition, but the city prosecutor argued this was unconstitutional as the probation law only applied to provinces. The Supreme Court agreed, finding the law violated equal protection by giving absolute discretion to provincial boards to decide probation access without standards. It also constituted undue delegation of legislative power. The Court declared the probation law unconstitutional for these reasons.

    Original Description:

    Admin Case Digest

    Original Title

    People v Vera Digest

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cu Unjieng was convicted of a crime in Manila but filed for reconsideration and probation while awaiting a new trial ordered by the Supreme Court. Judge Vera allowed Cu Unjieng's probation petition, but the city prosecutor argued this was unconstitutional as the probation law only applied to provinces. The Supreme Court agreed, finding the law violated equal protection by giving absolute discretion to provincial boards to decide probation access without standards. It also constituted undue delegation of legislative power. The Court declared the probation law unconstitutional for these reasons.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    237 views2 pages

    People V Vera Digest

    Uploaded by

    Chrys Barcena
    Cu Unjieng was convicted of a crime in Manila but filed for reconsideration and probation while awaiting a new trial ordered by the Supreme Court. Judge Vera allowed Cu Unjieng's probation petition, but the city prosecutor argued this was unconstitutional as the probation law only applied to provinces. The Supreme Court agreed, finding the law violated equal protection by giving absolute discretion to provincial boards to decide probation access without standards. It also constituted undue delegation of legislative power. The Court declared the probation law unconstitutional for these reasons.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    People of the Philippines & HSBC vs Judge Jose Vera & Mariano Cu Unjieng

    !"#$!%&'(&)#*+#,-.-#

    Political Law Equal Protection Probation Law


    Cu Unjieng was convicted by the trial court in Manila. He filed for reconsideration which was elevated to the SC and the SC remanded the appeal to the lower court for a new trial. While awaiting new trial, he appealed for probation alleging that the he is innocent of the crime he was convicted of. Judge Tuason of the Manila CFI directed the appeal to the Insular Probation Office. The IPO denied the application. However, Judge Vera upon another request by Cu Unjieng allowed the petition to be set for hearing. The City Prosecutor countered alleging that Vera has no power to place Cu Unjieng under probation because it is in violation of Sec. 11 Act No. 4221 which provides that the act of Legislature granting provincial boards the power to provide a system of probation to convicted person. Nowhere in the law is stated that the law is applicable to a city like Manila because it is only indicated therein that only provinces are covered. And even if Manila is covered by the law it is unconstitutional because Sec 1 Art 3 of the Constitution provides equal protection of laws. The said law provides absolute discretion to provincial boards and this also constitutes undue delegation of power. Further, the said probation law may be an encroachment of the power of the executive to provide pardon because providing probation, in effect, is granting freedom, as in pardon. ISSUE: Whether or not equal protection is violated when the Probation Law provides that only in those provinces in which the respective provincial boards have provided for the salary of a probation officer may the probation system be applied. HELD: The act of granting probation is not the same as pardon. In fact it is limited and is in a way an imposition of penalty. There is undue delegation of power because there is no set standard provided by Congress on how provincial boards must act in carrying out a system of probation. The provincial boards are given absolute discretion which is violative of the constitution and the doctrine of the non delegability of power. Further, it is a violation of equity so protected by the constitution. The challenged section of Act No. 4221 in section 11 which reads as follows: 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 officer shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice and shall be subject to the direction of the Probation Office. This only means that only provinces that can provide appropriation for a probation officer may have a system of probation within their locality. This would mean to say that convicts in provinces where no probation officer is instituted may not avail of their right to probation. The SC declared the old probation law as unconstitutional.

    People vs Vera
    !"#/&0&'(&)#.1+#,-..#

    Political Law Delegation of Powers


    Cu Unjieng was convicted by the trial court in Manila. He filed for reconsideration which was elevated to the SC and the SC remanded the appeal to the lower court for a new trial. While awaiting new trial, he appealed for probation alleging that the he is innocent of the crime he was convicted of. Judge Tuason of the Manila CFI directed the appeal to the Insular Probation Office. The IPO denied the application. However, Judge Vera upon another request by petitioner allowed the petition to be set for hearing. The City Prosecutor countered alleging that Vera has no power to place Cu Unjieng under probation because it is in violation of Sec. 11 Act No. 4221 which provides that the act of Legislature granting provincial boards the power to provide a system of probation to convicted person. Nowhere in the law is stated that the law is applicable to a city like Manila because it is only indicated therein that only provinces are covered. And even if Manila is covered by the law it is unconstitutional because Sec 1 Art 3 of the Constitution provides equal protection of laws. The said law provides absolute discretion to provincial boards and this also constitutes undue delegation of power. Further, the said probation law may be an encroachment of the power of the executive to provide pardon because providing probation, in effect, is granting freedom, as in pardon. ISSUE: Whether or not there is undue delegation of power. HELD: The act of granting probation is not the same as pardon. In fact it is limited and is in a way an imposition of penalty. There is undue delegation of power because there is no set standard provided by Congress on how provincial boards must act in carrying out a system of probation. The provincial boards are given absolute discretion which is violative of the constitution and the doctrine of the non delegability of power. Further, it is a violation of equity so protected by the constitution. The challenged section of Act No. 4221 in section 11 which reads as follows: 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 officer shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice and shall be subject to the direction of the Probation Office. This only means that only provinces that can provide appropriation for a probation officer may have a system of probation within their locality. This would mean to say that convicts in provinces where no probation officer is instituted may not avail of their right to probation.

    You might also like