Case 10

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and THE HONGKONG & Shanghai Banking
Corp v Judge Vera (CFI Manila), Mariano Cu (previous defendant)

Facts:

 Judge Vera grants defendant Mariano Cu probation, which was contested by petitioners
on the grounds:
o Under Act 4221, probation is said to apply to provinces, it does not state it may
be applied to chartered cities like Manila
o Under Admin Code, the term “province” may also apply to cities like Manila, for
the purposes of applying general laws, however 4221 is not one because it is
only made to apply to provinces in which the respective provincial boards shall
have provided for the salary of a probation officer
o 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 not provided for the salary of a
probation officer as required by section 11 thereof

Even if Judge had jurisdiction, he acted w/ abuse of authority due to:

o His jurisdiction and power in probation proceedings is limited to the granting or

denying of applications for probation
o After he had issued the order denying Mariano Cu Unjieng's petition for
probation, it became final and executory at the moment of its rendition.
o No right of appeal exists in such cases.
o The respondent judge lacks the power to grant a rehearing of said order or to
modify or change the same

 In a supplementary petition filed by Shanghai and HK, Act. 4221 is unconstitutional since
it
a.) violates equal protection and because it constitutes an unlawful and
b.) improper delegation to the provincial boards of the several provinces of the
legislative power and it
c. ) encroaches upon powers of Pres to grant pardons and reprieves

Issues:

1. whether or not the constitutionality of Act No. 4221 has been properly raised in these
proceedings
2. in the affirmative, whether or not said Act is constitutional and won it violates the
equal protection clause

Ruling:
Act. 4221 is declared unconstitutional

1. Yes, it has, since the Fiscal and People are party-in-interest to the case

It does not encroach upon prerogatives of the President since the legislature have nothing to
do with the pardoning powers and vice versa. Probation and pardon are not coterminous;
nor are they the same. They are actually distinct and different from each other, both in origin
and in nature. In probation, the probationer is in no true sense, as in pardon, a free man

2. Yes, it is unconstitutional

A.) As a general rule, legislative powers may be delegated. RA 4221 is an invalid exercise
of legislative power. The probation Act does not, by the force of any of its provisions,
fix and impose upon the provincial boards any standard or guide in the exercise of
their discretionary power. Moreover, it may not have been expressly stated but
provinces were given the discretion won to implement RA 4221 by abiding or ignoring
the section regarding salary of probationary officers
B.) Yes, it violates equal protection clause since it would be possible wherein a province
would have probationary law, and another without. It would become unfair for
residents of different provinces

NOTES:

Under Jones Law, Legislature had power to grant probation (During time of Americans,
probation could be granted before or after commission of crime). Now it is after, As already
stated, the Jones Law vests the pardoning power exclusively in the Chief Executive. The
exercise of the power may not, therefore, be vested in anyone else.

Class legislation, definition

No valid classification