Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    People vs. Vera Digest

    Uploaded by

    Cedrick
    This case involved a criminal defendant, Mariano Cu Unjieng, who was convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison. After his conviction was upheld on appeal, he filed an application for probation under Act No. 4221. The trial court judge, Jose Vera, scheduled a hearing on the probation application. The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the probation application. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 11 of Act No. 4221, which allowed provincial boards to determine whether the probation law would apply in their provinces, constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative power and was unconstitutional. Therefore, the entire Act No. 4221 was

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People vs. Vera Digest

    Uploaded by

    Cedrick
    2K views3 pages
    This case involved a criminal defendant, Mariano Cu Unjieng, who was convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison. After his conviction was upheld on appeal, he filed an application for probation under Act No. 4221. The trial court judge, Jose Vera, scheduled a hearing on the probation application. The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the probation application. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 11 of Act No. 4221, which allowed provincial boards to determine whether the probation law would apply in their provinces, constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative power and was unconstitutional. Therefore, the entire Act No. 4221 was

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a criminal defendant, Mariano Cu Unjieng, who was convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison. After his conviction was upheld on appeal, he filed an application for probation under Act No. 4221. The trial court judge, Jose Vera, scheduled a hearing on the probation application. The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the probation application. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 11 of Act No. 4221, which allowed provincial boards to determine whether the probation law would apply in their provinces, constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative power and was unconstitutional. Therefore, the entire Act No. 4221 was

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views3 pages

    People vs. Vera Digest

    Uploaded by

    Cedrick
    This case involved a criminal defendant, Mariano Cu Unjieng, who was convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison. After his conviction was upheld on appeal, he filed an application for probation under Act No. 4221. The trial court judge, Jose Vera, scheduled a hearing on the probation application. The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the probation application. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 11 of Act No. 4221, which allowed provincial boards to determine whether the probation law would apply in their provinces, constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative power and was unconstitutional. Therefore, the entire Act No. 4221 was

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    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.

    You might also like