Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
57
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
58
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
59
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
60
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
61
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
62
63
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
64
65
66
67
68
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
69
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
70
71
LAUREL, J.:
______________
72
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
(1) Under section 11 of Act No. 4221, the said Act of the
Philippine Legislature is made to apply only to the
provinces of the Philippines; it nowhere states that
it is to be made applicable to chartered cities like
the City of Manila.
(2) While section 37 of the Administrative Code
contains a proviso to the effect that in the absence
of a special provision, the term "province" may be
construed to include the City of Manila for the
purpose of giving effect to laws of general
application, it is also true that Act No. 4221 is not a
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
80
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
81
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
88
Carmody vs. St. Louis Transit Co. [1905], 188 Mo., 572; 87
S. W., 913.) And it has been held that a constitutional
question will be considered by an appellate court at any
time, where it involves the jurisdiction of the court below
(State vs.
89
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 37/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
"* * * The idea seems to be that the people are estopped from
questioning the validity of a law enacted by their representatives;
that to an accusation by the people of Michigan of usurpation
upon their government, a statute enacted by the people of
Michigan is an adequate answer. The last proposition is true, but,
if the statute relied on in justification is unconstitutional, it is a
statute only in form, and lacks the force of law, and is of no more
saving effect to justify action under it than if it had never been
enacted. The constitution is the supreme law, and to its behests
the courts, the legislature, and the people must bow. * * * The
legislature and the respondents are not the only parties in
interest upon such. constitutional questions. As was remarked by
Mr. Justice Story, in speaking of an acquiescence by a party
affected by an unconstitutional act of the legislature: 'The people
have a deep and vested interest in maintaining all the
constitutional limitations upon the exercise of legislative powers.'
(Allen vs. Mckeen, 1 Sum., 314.)"
In State vs. Doane ([1916], 98 Kan., 435; 158 Pac., 38, 40),
an original action (mandamus) was brought by the
Attorney-General of Kansas to test the constitutionality of
a statute of the state. In disposing of the question whether
or not the state may bring the action, 'the Supreme Court
of Kansas said:
91
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 38/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 39/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
The mere fact that the Probation Act has been repeatedly
relied upon in the past and all that time has not been
attacked as unconstitutional by the Fiscal of Manila but, on
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 40/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 45/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
cise thereof, * * *." (12 C. J., pp. 838, 839, and cases cited.)
If Act No. 4221, then, confers any pardoning power upon
the courts it is for that reason unconstitutional and void.
But does it?
In the famous Killitts decision involving an
embezzlement case, the Supreme Court of the United
States ruled in 1916 that an order indefinitely suspending
sentence was void. (Ex parte United States [1916], 242 U.
S., 27; 61 Law. ed., 129; L. R. A. 1917E, 1178; 37 Sup. Ct.
Rep., 72; Ann, Cas. 1917B, 355.) Chief Justice White, after
an exhaustive review of the authorities, expressed the
opinion of the court that under the common law the power
of the court was limited to temporary suspension and that
the right to suspend sentence absolutely and permanently
was vested in the executive branch of the government and
not in the judiciary. But, the right of Congress to establish
probation by statute was conceded. Said the court through
its Chief Justice: " * * * and so far as the future is
concerned, that is, the causing of the imposition of
penalties as fixed to be subject, by probation legislation or
such other means as the legislative mind may devise, to
such judicial discretion as may be adequate to enable
courts to meet by the exercise of an enlarged but wise
discretion the infinite variations which may be presented to
them for judgment, recourse must be had to Congress
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 46/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 47/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
"If this bill is enacted into law, it will bring the policy of the
Federal government with reference to its treatment of those
convicted of violations of its criminal laws in harmony with that of
the states of the Union. At the present time every state has a
probation law, and in all but twelve states the law applies both to
adult and juvenile offenders." (See, also, Johnson, Probation for
Juveniles and Adults [1928], Chap. I.)
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 49/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 50/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
104
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 51/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 52/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
State vs. Teal [1918], 108 S. C., 455; 95 S. E., 69; State vs.
Abbot [1910], 87 S. C., 466; 33 L. R. A. [N. S.], 112; 70 S. E.,
6; Ann. Cas., 1912B, 1189; Fults vs. State [1854], 34 Tenn.,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 53/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
232; Woods vs. State [1814], 180 Tenn., 100; 169 S. W., 558;
Baker vs. State. [1913], 70 Tex., Crim. Rep., 618; 158 S. W.,
998; Cook vs. State [1914], 73 Tex. Crim. Rep., 548; 165 S.
W., 573; King vs. State [1914], 72 Tex. Crim. Rep., 394; 162
S. W., 890; Clare vs. State [1932], 122 Tex. Crim. Rep., 211;
54 S. W. [2d], 127; Re Hall [1927], 100 Vt., 197; 136 A., 24;
Richardson vs. Com. [1921], 131 Va., 802; 109 S. E., 460;
State vs. Mallahan [1911], 65 Wash., 287; 118 Pac., 42;
State ex rel Tingstad vs. Starwich [1922], 119 Wash., 561;
206' Pac., 29; 26 A. L. R., 393; 396.) We elect to follow this
long catena of authorities holding that the courts may be
legally authorized by the legislature to suspend sentence by
the establishment of a system of probation however
characterized. State ex rel. Tingstad vs. Starwich ([1922],
119 Wash., 561; 206 Pac., 29; 26 A. L. R., 393), deserved
particular mention. In that case, a statute enacted in 1921
which provided for the suspension of the execution of a
sentence until otherwise ordered by the court, and required
that the convicted person be placed under the charge of a
parole or peace officer during the term of such suspension,
on such terms as the court may determine, was held
constitutional and as not giving the court a power in
violation of the constitutional provision vesting the
pardoning power in the chief executive of the state. (Vide,
also, Re Giannini [1912], 18 Cal. App., 166; 122 Pac., 831.)
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 People ex rel
Forsyth vs. Court of Sessions ([1894], 141 N. Y., 288, 294;
36 N. E., 386, 388; 23 L. R. A., 856; 15 Am. Crim. Rep.,
675), the Court of Appeals of New York said:
"* * * The power to suspend sentence and the power to
grant reprieves and pardons, as understood when the
constitution was adopted, are totally distinct and different
108
109
110
of the Probation Act for this cause." (Archer vs. Snook [1926], 10
F. [2d], 567, 569.)
"That the power to suspend the sentence does not conflict with the
power of the Governor to grant reprieves is settled by the
decisions of the various courts; it being held that the distinction
between a 'reprieve' and a suspension of sentence is that a
reprieve postpones the execution of the sentence to a day certain,
whereas a suspension is for an indefinite time. (Carnal vs. People,
1 Parker, Cr. R., 262; In re Buchanan, 146 N. Y., 264; 40 N. E.,
883), and cases cited in 7 Words & Phrases, pp. 6115, 6116. This
law cannot be held in conflict with the power confiding in the
Governor to grant commutations of punishment, for a
commutation is but to change the punishment assessed to a less
punishment."
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 61/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 62/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
118
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 63/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
arisen. But, in the case at bar, the legislature has not made
the operation of the Probation Act contingent upon
specified facts or conditions to be ascertained by the
provincial board. It leaves, as we have already said, the
entire operation or non-operation of the law upon the
provincial boards. The discretion vested is arbitrary
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 65/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 66/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
122
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 67/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
123
370; 26 Law. ed., 567; Soon Hing vs. Crowley [1885], 113 U.
S., 703; 28
128
Law. ed., 1145; Yick Wo vs. Hopkins [1886], 118 U. S., 356;
30 Law. ed., 220; Williams vs. Mississippi [1897], 170 U. S.,
218; 18 Sup. Ct. Rep., 583; 42 Law. ed., 1012; Bailey vs.
Alabama [1911], 219 U. S., 219; 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 145; 55
Law. ed., 191; Sunday Lake Iron Co. vs. Wakefield [1918],
247 U. S., 450; 38 Sup. Ct. Rep., 495; 62 Law. ed., 1154.) In
other words, statutes may be adjudged unconstitutional
because of their effect in operation (General Oil Co. vs.
Clain [1907], 209 U. S., 211; 28 Sup. Ct. Rep., 475; 52 Law.
ed., 754; State vs. Clement Nat Bank [1911], 84 Vt., 167; 78
Atl., 944; Ann. Cas., 1912D, 22). If a law has the effect of
denying the equal protection of the law it is
unconstitutional. (6 R. C. L. p. 372; Civil Rights Cases, 109
U. S., 3; 3 Sup. Ct. Rep., 18; 27 Law. ed., 835; Yick Wo vs.
Hopkins, supra; State vs. Montgomery, 94 Me., 192; 47 Atl.,
165; 80 A. S. R., 386; State vs. Dering, 84 Wis., 585; 54 N.
W., 1104; 36 A. S. R., 948; 19 L. R. A,, 858.) Under section
11 of the Probation Act, not only may said Act be in force in
one or several provinces and not be in force in the other
provinces, but one province may appropriate for the salary
of a probation officer of a given year—and have probation
during that year—and thereafter decline to make further
appropriation, and have no probation in subsequent years.
While this situation goes rather to the abuse of discretion
which delegation implies, it is here indicated to show that
the Probation Act sanctions a situation which is intolerable
in a government of laws, and to prove how easy it is, under
the Act, to make the guaranty of the equality clause but "a
rope of sand". (Brewer, J. Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co. vs. Ellis
[1897], 165 U. S., 150, 154; 41 Law. ed., 666; 17 Sup. Ct.
Rep., 255.)
Great reliance is placed by counsel for the respondents
on the case of Ocampo vs. United States ([1914], 234 U. S.,
91; 58 Law. ed., 1231). In that case, the Supreme Court of
the United States affirmed the decision of this court (18
Phil., 1) by declining to uphold the contention that there
was a denial of the equal protection of the laws because, as
held in Missouri vs. Lewis (Bowman vs. Lewis) decided
129
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 73/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 74/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
131
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 75/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
132
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 76/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
133
134
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 80/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 81/82
1/25/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 065
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016882a83c9f4cf62bc5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 82/82