Peple vs Vera

Cu Unjieng was convicted by the trial court in Manila. He filed for

reconsideration which was elevated to the SC and the SC remanded the
appeal to the lower court for a new trial. While awaiting new trial, he
appealed for probation alleging that the he is innocent of the crime he was
convicted of. Judge Tuason of the Manila CFI directed the appeal to the
Insular Probation Office. The IPO denied the application. However, Judge
Vera upon another request by petitioner allowed the petition to be set for
hearing. The City Prosecutor countered alleging that Vera has no power to
place Cu Unjieng under probation because it is in violation of Sec. 11 Act No.
4221 which provides that the act of Legislature granting provincial boards
the power to provide a system of probation to convicted person. Nowhere in
the law is stated that the law is applicable to a city like Manila because it is
only indicated therein that only provinces are covered. And even if Manila is
covered by the law it is unconstitutional because Sec 1 Art 3 of the
Constitution provides equal protection of laws. The said law provides
absolute discretion to provincial boards and this also constitutes undue
delegation of power. Further, the said probation law may be an
encroachment of the power of the executive to provide pardon because
providing probation, in effect, is granting freedom, as in pardon.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is undue delegation of power.
HELD: The act of granting probation is not the same as pardon. In fact it is
limited and is in a way an imposition of penalty. There is undue delegation of
power because there is no set standard provided by Congress on how
provincial boards must act in carrying out a system of probation. The
provincial boards are given absolute discretion which is violative of the
constitution and the doctrine of the non delegability of power. Further, it is a
violation of equity so protected by the constitution. The challenged section of
Act No. 4221 in section 11 which reads as follows: This Act shall apply only
in those provinces in which the respective provincial boards have provided
for the salary of a probation officer at rates not lower than those now
provided for provincial fiscals. Said probation officer shall be appointed by
the Secretary of Justice and shall be subject to the direction of the Probation
Office. This only means that only provinces that can provide appropriation
for a probation officer may have a system of probation within their locality.
This would mean to say that convicts in provinces where no probation officer
is instituted may not avail of their right to probation.