Case Digest of the Case People of the Philippines v. Perfecto, Phil 887
Full description
Digested Case about People vs Dino. This is a summary of the People vs. Dino Case.
Leg wri
consti 1
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2Full description
Law (taxation)Full description
Case Digest Criminal LawFull description
bvjhfnhfdfjgyfrj
Full description
Full description
People vs. Vera, November 16, 1937 LAUREL, J.
Cu Unjieng was convicted by the trial court in Manila. He iled or reconsideration which was elevated to the !C and the !C re"anded the a##eal to the lower court or a new trial. $hile awaiting new trial, he a##ealed or #robation alleging that the he is innocent o the cri"e he was convicted o. Judge %uason o the Manila C&' directed the a##eal to the 'nsular (robation )ice. %he '() denied the a##lication. However, Judge *era u#on another re+uest by #etitioner allowed the #etition to be set or hearing. %he City (rosecutor countered alleging that *era has no #ower to #lace Cu Unjieng under #robation because it is in violation o !ec. Act -o. // which #rovides that the act o Legislature granting #rovincial boards the #ower to #rovide a syste" o #robation to convicted #erson. -owhere in the law is stated that the law is a##licable to a city li0e Manila because it is only indicated therein that only #rovinces are covered. And even i Manila is covered by the law it is unconstitutional because !ec Art 1 o the Constitution #rovides e+ual #rotection o laws. %he said law #rovides absolute discretion to #rovincial boards and this also constitutes undue delegation o #ower. &urther, the said #robation law "ay be an encroach"ent o the #ower o the e2ecutive to #rovide #ardon because #roviding #robation, in eect, is granting reedo", as in #ardon. '!!UE3 $hether or not there is undue delegation o #ower. HEL43 %he act o granting #robation is not the sa"e as #ardon. 'n act it is li"ited and is in a way an i"#osition o #enalty. %here is undue delegation o #ower because there is no set standard #rovided by Congress on how #rovincial boards "ust act in carrying out a syste" o #robation. %he #rovincial boards are given absolute discretion which is violative o the constitution and the doctrine o the non delegability o #ower. &urther, it is a violation o e+uity so #rotected by the constitution. %he challenged section o Act -o. // in section which reads as ollows3 %his Act shall a##ly only in those #rovinces in which the res#ective #rovincial boards have #rovided or the salary o a #robation oicer at rates not lower than those now #rovided or #rovincial iscals. !aid #robation oicer shall be a##ointed by the !ecretary o Justice and shall be subject to the direction o the (robation )ice. %his only "eans that only #rovinces that can #rovide a##ro#riation or a #robation oicer "ay have a syste" o #robation within their locality. %his would "ean to say that convicts in #rovinces where no #robation oicer is instituted "ay not avail o their right to #robation.