THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and the HONG KONG &

SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION (HSBC) v. JOSE VERA, Judge ad

interim of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and MARIANO CU
UNJIENG (65 Phil 56)
November 16, 1937

FACTS:
- The criminal case, People v. Cu Unjieng was filed in the Court
of First Instance (CFI) in Manila, with HSBC intervening in the
case as private prosecutor.
- The CFI rendered a judgment of conviction sentencing Cu
Unjieng to an indeterminate penalty ranging from four years
and two months of prision correccional to eight years of prison
mayor. (Jan. 8, 1934)
- Upon appeal, it was modified to an indeterminate penalty of
from five years and six months of prison correccional to seven
years, six months and twenty-seven days of prison mayor, but
affirmed the judgments in all other respects.
- Cu Unjieng filed a Motion for Reconsideration and four
successive motions for new trial which were all denied on
December 17, 1935. Final judgment was entered on Dec. 18,
1935. He filed for certiorari to the Supreme Court but got
denied on Nov 1936. The SC subsequently denied Cu Unjiengs
petition for leave to file a second alternative motion for
reconsideration or new trial, then remanded the case to the
court of origin for execution of judgment.
- Cu Unjieng filed an application for probation before the trial
court, under the provisions of Act 4221 of the defunct
Philippine Legislature. He states he is innocent of the crime;
he has no criminal record; and that he would observe good
conduct in the future.
- CFI Manila Judge Jose Vera set the petition for hearing for
probation on April 5, 1937.
- HSBC questioned the authority of Vera to hold such hearings
and assailed the constitutionality of the Probation Act since it
violates the equal protection of laws and gives unlawful and
improper delegation to provincial boards.
- Section 11 of Art 4221 states that the act shall only be applied
in those provinces wherein the probationary officer is granted
salary not lower than provincial fiscals by respective provincial
boards.
- The City Fiscal of Manila files a supplementary petition
affirming issues raised by HSBC, arguing that probation is a
 form of reprieve, hence Act 4221 bypasses this exclusive
power of the Chief Executive.
- Hence this petition in the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the constitutionality of Act 4221 has been
properly raised in these proceedings;
2. If in the affirmative, whether or not Act 4221 is constitutional
based on these three grounds:
a. It encroaches upon the pardoning power of the executive
b. It constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power
c. It denies the equal protection of the laws
HELD/RATIO:
1. Yes. Constitutional questions will not be determined by the
courts unless properly raised and presented in appropriate
cases and is necessary to a determination of the case, lis
mota. Constitutionality issues may be raised in prohibition and
certiorari proceedings, as they may also be raised in
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus proceedings.
The general rule states that constitutionality should be raised
in the earliest possible opportunity (during proceedings in
initial/inferior courts). It may be said that the state can
challenge the validity of its own laws, as in this case. The well-
settled rule is that the person impugning validity must have
personal and substantial interest in the case (i.e. he has
sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result of its
enforcement). If Act 4221 is unconstitutional, the People of the
Philippines have substantial interest in having it set aside.

2.
a. No. There exists a distinction between pardon and
probation. Pardoning power is solely within the power of
the Executive. Probation has an effect of temporary
suspension, and the probationer is still not exempt from
the entire punishment which the law inflicts upon him as
he remains to be in legal custody for the time being.
b. Yes. The Probation Act does not lay down any definite
standards by which the administrative boards may be
guided in the exercise of discretionary powers, hence they
have the power to determine for themselves, whether or
not to apply the law or not. This therefore becomes a
surrender of legislative power to the provincial boards. It
is unconstitutional.
c. Yes. Due to the unwarranted delegation of legislative
power, some provinces may choose to adopt the law or
not, thus denying the equal protection of laws. It is
unconstitutional.