PEOPLE VS. VERA, G.R. No. L-45685, November 16 1937, 65 Phil.

56
FACTS:
Petitioners, People of the Philippines and Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) are
respectively the plaintif and the ofended party, and Mariano Cu Unjieng is one of the defendants, in
the criminal case. 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. HSBC intervened in the
case as private prosecutor. After a protracted trial, the Court of First Instance 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
ofended 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not the People of the Philippines is a proper party in this 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 who just copy paste cases from the internet 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 No. 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 wellsettled rule that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws.