People vs.

Vera

Facts:
On October 15, 1931, petitioner herein Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation intervening in the
case as private prosecutor. The Court of First Instance of Manila, on January 8, 1934, rendered a
judgment of conviction sentencing the defendant Mariano Cu Unjieng to indeterminate penalty ranging
from four years and two months of prision correccional to eight years of prision mayor.

The respondent filed several motions for reconsideration or new trial but was denied. On 1936, the SC
remanded the case to the original court of origin for the execution of judgment. While waiting for the new
trial, he appealed to Insular Probation Office (IPO) for probation but was denied. However, Judge Vera,
upon another request by petitioner, allowed the petition to be set for hearing for probation.

The private prosecution filed an opposition on April 5, 1937, alleging, among other things, 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4221, assuming that it has not been repealed by section 2 of Article XV of the Constitution, is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 for the reason that its applicability is not uniform throughout the Islands and
because section 11 of the said Act endows the provincial boards with the power to make said law
effective or otherwise in their respective or otherwise in their respective provinces.

Issue:
WON Act No. 4221 is an invalid delegation of legislative power for lack of a sufficient standard test.

Ruling:
Yes. The Court held that in testing whether a statute constitute an undue delegation of legislative power
or not, it is usual to inquire whether the statute was complete in all its terms and provisions when it left
the hands of the legislature so that nothing was left to the judgment of any other appointee or delegate of
the legislature.

Moreover, for the purpose of Probation Act, the provincial boards may be regarded as administrative
bodies endowed with power to determine when the Act should take effect in their respective provinces.
However, the law does not lay down any rule or standard to guide the provincial boards in the exercise of
the discretionary power. What is granted to them is a roving commission which enables the provincial
board to exercise arbitrary discretion.

The applicability and probability of the probation act are placed entirely in the hands of the provincial
boards with no standard or rule to guide them.