People vs.

Vera

[GR 45685, 16 November 1937] First Division,

Laurel (J): 4 concur, 2 concur in result

Facts:

The People of the Philippine

and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC), are respectively

the plaintiff and the offended party, and 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 42649) of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of

Manila and GR 41200 of the Suprme Court. 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 Cu Unjieng for probation in the aforesaid criminal case. The

information in the said criminal case was filed with the CFI on 15 October 1931, HSBC

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

CFI, on 8 January 1934, rendered a judgment of conviction

sentencing Cu Unjieng to indeterminate penalty ranging

from 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional to 8 years of prision mayor,

to pay the costs and with reservation of civil action to the offended party, HSBC. Upon appeal,

the court, on 26 March 1935, modified the sentence to an indeterminate penalty of

from 5 years and 6 months of prision correccional to 7 years, 6 months and 27

days of prision mayor, but affirmed the judgment in all other respects. Cu Unjieng

filed a motion for reconsideratio n and four successive motions for new trial

which were denied on 17 December 1935, and final judgment was accordingly

entered on 18 December 1935. Cu Unjieng 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. The Supreme Court, on 24 November

1936, denied the petition subsequently filed by Cu Unjieng for leave to file

a second alternative motion for reconsideratio n or new trial and thereafter remanded the

case to the court of origin for execution of the judgment. Cu Unjieng filed an

application for probation on 27 November 1936, before the trial court, under the

provisions of Act 4221 of the defunct Philippine Legislature. 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 CFI of Manila, Judge Pedro Tuason presiding, referred the application for

probation of the Insular Probation Office which recommended denial of the same 18 June

1937. Thereafter, the CFI of Manila, seventh branch, Judge Jose O. Vera

presiding, set the petition for hearing on 5 April 1937. On 2 April 1937, the Fiscal of

the City of Manila filed an opposition to the granting of probation to Cu Unjieng.

The private prosecution also filed an opposition on 5 April 1937,

alleging, among other things, that Act 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 unconstitution ality on Act

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 constitutionali ty of Act 4221. On 28 June 1937, Judge Jose O.

Vera promulgated a resolution, concluding that Cu Unjieng "es inocente por

duda racional" of the crime of which he stands convicted by the Supreme court

in GR 41200, but denying the latter's petition for probation. On 3 July 1937, counsel for Cu

Unjieng filed an exception to the resolution denying probation and a notice of

intention to file a motion for reconsideratio n. An alternative motion for

reconsideratio n or new trial was filed by counsel on 13 July 1937. This

was supplemented by an additional motion for reconsideratio n submitted on

14 July 1937. The aforesaid motions were set for hearing on 31 July 1937, but said hearing was

postponed at the petition of counsel for Cu Unjieng because a motion for leave to

intervene in the case as amici curiae signed by 33 (34) attorneys had just been

filed with the trial court. On 6 August 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 Cu Unjieng to jail in

obedience to said judgment. On 10 August 1937, Judge Vera issued an order

requiring all parties including the movants for intervention as amici curiae to

appear before the court on 14 August 1937. On the lastmentioned 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 Cu Unjieng, he moved for the postponement of the hearing of both

motions. The judge thereupon set the hearing of the motion for execution on 21 August

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 19 August 1937. But at this juncture, HSBC and the People came to the

Supreme Court on extraordinary legal process to put an end to what they alleged

was an interminable proceeding in the CFI 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 the Supreme Court on 21 August 1937.

I ssue:

Whether the People of the Philippines, through the Solicitor

General and Fiscal of the City of Manila, is a proper party in present case.

Held:

YES. The People of the Philippines, represented by the SolicitorGeneral and

the Fiscal of the City of Manila, is a proper party in the present proceedings.

The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must

have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or

will sustained, direct injury as a result of its

enforcement. It goes without saying that if Act 4221 really violates the

constitution, the People of the Philippines, in whose name the present action is

brought, has a substantial interest in having it set aside. Of greater import than the

damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound

inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute. Hence,

the wellsettled rule that the state can challenge the validity of its own

laws