People vs Vera 65 Phil 56

FACTS:
1.Mariano Cu Unjieng was convicted of criminal charge in the Court of Manila
2.He filed several motions for reconsideration and new trial but were all denied. He also filed for certiorari to the
Supreme Court of the United States which was also denied. He then again filed for succeeding petitions for motion for
reconsideration for new trial and the court sent back the case to its court of origin to execute the judgement of sending
him to jail.
3.Mariano Cu Unjieng filed for motion for reconsideration for probation under the provision of Act No. 4221. Judge
Jose Vera of the 7thbranch of the Court of First Instance of Manila heard his petition and set the hearing.
4.The Fiscal of the City of Manila filed an opposition of said grant to Mariano Cu Unjieng’s appeal and alleged 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Act No. 4221, assuming that it has not been repealed by section 2 of Article XV of the Constitution, is nevertheless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. The
private prosecution also filed a supplementary opposition, 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).
5.Petition of private prosecution also pointed out under Act No. 4221, Judge Jose Vera has no jurisdiction over the
case.

ISSUE:
WON there is undue delegation of legislative power as alleged by the private prosecution?WON the act violates the
equal protection of the laws

HELD:
The Supreme Court concluded that section 11 of Act No. 4221 is an improper and unlawful delegation of legislative
authority to the provincial boards hence unconstitutional and void since there is no set standard provided by the
Congress as to how the system of probation must be carried out. The act violates the provision of the Bill of Rights
that mandates all human being to the equal protection of the laws. In such a case, the Probation Act would be in
operation in one province bu tnot in the other. One person in one province would enjoy the benefits of probation but it
will not be the same for the other. This would then be discrimination.