JUDICIAL REVIEW

LOCUS STANDI

People vs. Vera

GR 45685, 16 November 1937

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 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.