People vs Dacuycuy (May 5 1989)

Ponente: Regalado

Facts:
 Chief of Police of Hindang, Leyte filed a complaint against 3 respondents (Matondo, Caval, Zanoria) who are
public school officials
 The respondents were charged before the Municipal Court of Hindang, Leyte for violation of RA 4670, Magna
Carta for Public School Teachers
 The respondents pleaded not guilty and moved to quash the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the offense
allegedly due to the correctional nature of the penalty of imprisonment prescribed for the offense
 Municipal Court denied the motion to quash for lack of merit
 Respondents filed motion for reconsideration on the same ground but with further allegation that the facts charged
do not constitute an offense since Sec. 32 of the RA is unconstitutional
 Respondents filed a petition with preliminary injunction before the CFI of Leyte Branch 8 to restrain the Municipal
Judge, Provincial Fiscal, and Chief of Police from proceeding with the trial on the ground that:
o the Municipal Court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged
o the facts charged do not constitute an offense since Sec. 32 of the RA is unconstitutional
 It was allegedly unconstitutional because:
1. It imposes a cruel and unusual punishment (the term of imprisonment being unfixed and may run to reclusion
perpetua)
2. It constitutes undue delegation of legislative power (the duration of imprisonment being solely left to the
discretion of the court as if it was the legislative department)
 Judge Cuna of Branch 8 transferred the petition from Branch 8 to Branch 4 of the CFI for further proceedings
 Provincial Fiscal filed an opposition but Judge Dacuycuy denied
 Judge Dacuycuy rendered the decision that RA is constitutional but cases for its violation is outside the jurisdiction
of Municipal and City Courts
 Judge Dacuycuy remanded the case to the former Municipal Court of Hindang, Leyte only for preliminary
investigation
 Provincial Fiscal and Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration (Respondents for sustaining validity of Sec.
32)
 Judge Dacuycuy denied both motions
 Respondents contend that for courts to determine the duration of imprisonment would violate the Constitutional
prohibition against undue delegation of Legislative power since it’s the court’s discretion to decide
 Provincial Fiscal argues:
o determination of imprisonment is a matter of statutory construction and not an undue delegation of
legislative power
o the prohibition against undue delegation of legislative power is concerned only with power to make
laws and not to interpret
Issue: W/N Sec. 32 of RA 4670 is unconstitutional

Ruling: YES.
 There are 2 penalties in the RA, fine and imprisonment without specification of duration, which was left in the
discretion of the court
 It is not for the courts to fix the term of imprisonment where no points of reference have been provided by the
legislature
 Section 32 violates the constitutional prohibition against undue delegation of legislative power by vesting in the
court the power of imposing a duration on the punishment of imprisonment, as if the courts were the legislative
department of the government
 What a valid delegation requires and sanctions is an exercise of discretion to fix the length of term of imprisonment,
which must be encompassed within specific or designated limits provided by law —> absence of which
designates limits will constitute it as an undue delegation or intrusion of legislative power