People v Vera

GR No. 45685
11/16/1937
Justice Laurel
Facts of the Case:
This case involves Act 4221 or the Probation Act, which empowered Provincial Boards to appropriate salaries of
probation officers for the maintenance of the probation system in respective provinces, also this act allows the
delegation of power to provincial boards to support or not to support the probation system. This case came from
the Criminal case of PP vs. Cu Unjieng where the respondent judge of CFI Manila (7th branch) heard the
application of probation by Mariano Cu Unjieng. In a criminal case against Cu, the trial court under the respondent
judge convicted Cu of the crime charged to him. The defendant, Cu, filed a motion for reconsideration, and later,
filed an application for probation, which was later approved by the respondent judge.
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.
Hence, an original action for certiorari and prohibition was filed by the petitioners alleging that the respondent
judge placed Cu under probation. The petitioners also questions the constitutionality of the RA4221, contesting
that 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.
Issue:
Whether or not there is undue delegation of powers.
Held:
Yes. Act 4221 declared unconstitutional and void.
Ratio:
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 11which 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