THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING

CORPORATION, petitioners,
vs.
JOSE O. VERA, Judge . of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and MARIANO CU
UNJIENG, respondents.

Office of the Solicitor General Tuason and City Fiscal Diaz for the Government.
De Witt, Perkins and Ponce Enrile for the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation.
Vicente J. Francisco, Feria and La O, Orense and Belmonte, and Gibbs and McDonough for respondent Cu
Unjieng.
No appearance for respondent Judge.

LAUREL, J.:

This is an original action instituted in this court on August 19, 1937, for the issuance of the writ
of certiorari  and of prohibition to the Court of First Instance of Manila so that this court may review the
actuations of the aforesaid Court of First Instance in criminal case No. 42649 entitled "The People of the
Philippine Islands vs. Mariano Cu Unjieng, et al.", more particularly the application of the defendant
Mariano Cu Unjieng therein for probation under the provisions of Act No. 4221, and thereafter prohibit
the said Court of First Instance from taking any further action or entertaining further the
aforementioned application for probation, to the end that the defendant Mariano Cu Unjieng may be
forthwith committed to prison in accordance with the final judgment of conviction rendered by this
court in said case (G. R. No. 41200). 1

Petitioners herein, the People of the Philippine and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation,
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 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.

The information in the aforesaid criminal case was filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila on
October 15, 1931, petitioner herein Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation intervening in the case
as private prosecutor. After a protracted trial unparalleled in the annals of Philippine jurisprudence both
in the length of time spent by the court as well as in the volume in the testimony and the bulk of the
exhibits presented, 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, to pay the costs and with
reservation of civil action to the offended party, the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. Upon
appeal, the court, on March 26, 1935, modified the sentence to an indeterminate penalty of from five
years and six months of prision correccional  to seven years, six months and twenty-seven days of prision
mayor, but affirmed the judgment in all other respects. Mariano Cu Unjieng filed a motion for
reconsideration and four successive motions for new trial which were denied on December 17, 1935,
and final judgment was accordingly entered on December 18, 1935. The defendant thereupon sought to
have the case elevated on certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States but the latter denied the
petition for certiorari in             November, 1936. This court, on             November 24, 1936, denied the
petition subsequently filed by the defendant for leave to file a second alternative motion for
reconsideration or new trial and thereafter remanded the case to the court of origin for execution of the
judgment.

The instant proceedings have to do with the application for probation filed by the herein respondent
Mariano Cu Unjieng on             November 27, 1936, before the trial court, under the provisions of Act No.
4221 of the defunct Philippine Legislature. Herein respondent Mariano Cu Unjieng states in his
petition, inter alia, that he is innocent of the crime of which he was convicted, that he has no criminal
record and that he would observe good conduct in the future. The Court of First Instance of Manila,
Judge Pedro Tuason presiding, referred the application for probation of the Insular Probation Office
which recommended denial of the same June 18, 1937. Thereafter, the Court of First Instance of Manila,
seventh branch, Judge Jose O. Vera presiding, set the petition for hearing on April 5, 1937.

On April 2, 1937, the Fiscal of the City of Manila filed an opposition to the granting of probation to the
herein respondent Mariano Cu Unjieng. The private prosecution also 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. The private prosecution also filed a supplementary opposition on April 19, 1937, elaborating
on the alleged unconstitutionality on Act No. 4221, as an undue delegation of legislative power to the
provincial boards of several provinces (sec. 1, Art. VI, Constitution). The City Fiscal concurred in the
opposition of the private prosecution except with respect to the questions raised concerning the
constitutionality of Act No. 4221.

On June 28, 1937, herein respondent Judge Jose O. Vera promulgated a resolution with a finding that
"las pruebas no han establecido de unamanera concluyente la culpabilidad del peticionario y que todos
los hechos probados no son inconsistentes o incongrentes con su inocencia" and concludes that the
herein respondent Mariano Cu Unjieng "es inocente por duda racional" of the crime of which he stands
convicted by this court in G.R. No. 41200, but denying the latter's petition for probation for the reason
that:

. . . Si este Juzgado concediera la poblacion solicitada por las circunstancias y la historia social que se han
expuesto en el cuerpo de esta resolucion, que hacen al peticionario acreedor de la misma, una parte de
la opinion publica, atizada por los recelos y las suspicacias, podria levantarse indignada contra un
sistema de probacion que permite atisbar en los procedimientos ordinarios de una causa criminal
perturbando la quietud y la eficacia de las decisiones ya recaidas al traer a la superficie conclusiones
enteramente differentes, en menoscabo del interes publico que demanda el respeto de las leyes y del
veredicto judicial.

On July 3, 1937, counsel for the herein respondent Mariano Cu Unjieng filed an exception to the
resolution denying probation and a notice of intention to file a motion for reconsideration. An
alternative motion for reconsideration or new trial was filed by counsel on July 13, 1937. This was
supplemented by an additional motion for reconsideration submitted on July 14, 1937. The aforesaid
motions were set for hearing on July 31, 1937, but said hearing was postponed at the petition of counsel
for the respondent Mariano Cu Unjieng because a motion for leave to intervene in the case as amici
curiae  signed by thirty-three (thirty-four) attorneys had just been filed with the trial court. Attorney
Eulalio Chaves whose signature appears in the aforesaid motion subsequently filed a petition for leave
to withdraw his appearance as amicus curiae  on the ground that the motion for leave to intervene
as amici curiae  was circulated at a banquet given by counsel for Mariano Cu Unjieng on the evening of
July 30, 1937, and that he signed the same "without mature deliberation and purely as a matter of
courtesy to the person who invited me (him)."

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.

On August 7, 1937, the private prosecution filed its opposition to the motion for leave to intervene
as amici curiae  aforementioned, asking that a date be set for a hearing of the same and that, at all
events, said motion should be denied with respect to certain attorneys signing the same who were
members of the legal staff of the several counsel for Mariano Cu Unjieng. On August 10, 1937, herein
respondent Judge Jose O. Vera issued an order requiring all parties including the movants for
intervention as amici curiae to appear before the court on August 14, 1937. On the last-mentioned date,
the Fiscal of the City of Manila moved for the hearing of his motion for execution of judgment in
preference to the motion for leave to intervene as amici curiae but, upon objection of counsel for
Mariano Cu Unjieng, he moved for the postponement of the hearing of both motions. The respondent
judge thereupon set the hearing of the motion for execution on August 21, 1937, but proceeded to
consider the motion for leave to intervene as amici curiae as in order. Evidence as to the circumstances
under which said motion for leave to intervene as amici curiae was signed and submitted to court was to
have been heard on August 19, 1937. But at this juncture, herein petitioners came to this court on
extraordinary legal process to put an end to what they alleged was an interminable proceeding in the
Court of First Instance of Manila which fostered "the campaign of the defendant Mariano Cu Unjieng for
delay in the execution of the sentence imposed by this Honorable Court on him, exposing the courts to
criticism and ridicule because of the apparent inability of the judicial machinery to make effective a final
judgment of this court imposed on the defendant Mariano Cu Unjieng."

The scheduled hearing before the trial court was accordingly suspended upon the issuance of a
temporary restraining order by this court on August 21, 1937.

To support their petition for the issuance of the extraordinary writs of certiorari and prohibition, herein
petitioners allege that the respondent judge has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of his
jurisdiction:

I. Because said respondent judge lacks the power to place respondent Mariano Cu Unjieng under
probation for the following reason:

(1) Under section 11 of Act No. 4221, the said of the Philippine Legislature is made to apply only to the
provinces of the Philippines; it nowhere states that it is to be made applicable to chartered cities like the
City of Manila.
(2) While section 37 of the Administrative Code contains a proviso to the effect that in the absence of a
special provision, the term "province" may be construed to include the City of Manila for the purpose of
giving effect to laws of general application, it is also true that Act No. 4221 is not a law of general
application because it is made to apply only to those provinces in which the respective provincial boards
shall have provided for the salary of a probation officer.

(3) Even if the City of Manila were considered to be a province, still, Act No. 4221 would not be
applicable to it because it has provided for the salary of a probation officer as required by section 11
thereof; it being immaterial that there is an Insular Probation Officer willing to act for the City of Manila,
said Probation Officer provided for in section 10 of Act No. 4221 being different and distinct from the
Probation Officer provided for in section 11 of the same Act.

II. Because even if the respondent judge originally had jurisdiction to entertain the application for
probation of the respondent Mariano Cu Unjieng, he nevertheless acted without jurisdiction or in excess
thereof in continuing to entertain the motion for reconsideration and by failing to commit Mariano Cu
Unjieng to prison after he had promulgated his resolution of June 28, 1937, denying Mariano Cu
Unjieng's application for probation, for the reason that:

(1) His jurisdiction and power in probation proceedings is limited by Act No. 4221 to the granting or
denying of applications for probation.

(2) After he had issued the order denying Mariano Cu Unjieng's petition for probation on June 28, 1937,
it became final and executory at the moment of its rendition.

(3) No right on appeal exists in such cases.

(4) The respondent judge lacks the power to grant a rehearing of said order or to modify or change the
same.

III. Because the respondent judge made a finding that Mariano Cu Unjieng is innocent of the crime for
which he was convicted by final judgment of this court, which finding is not only presumptuous but
without foundation in fact and in law, and is furthermore in contempt of this court and a violation of the
respondent's oath of office as ad interim  judge of first instance.

IV. Because the respondent judge has violated and continues to violate his duty, which became
imperative when he issued his order of June 28, 1937, denying the application for probation, to commit
his co-respondent to jail.

Petitioners also avers that they have no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law.