Summary: People vs.

Vera (GR 45685, 16 November 1937)

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 correctional
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 reconsideration 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
reconsideration 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 unconstitutionality 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
constitutionality 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 reconsideration. An alternative motion for reconsideration or new
trial was filed by counsel on 13 July 1937. This was supplemented by an additional
motion for reconsideration 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 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 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.

Issue: 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 Solicitor-General 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 well-settled
rule that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws.