Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
DECISION
FIRST DIVISION
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Luis General, Jr. for petitioner. Solicitor General for respondents.
PLANA, J.:
In the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, petitioner Jojo Pastor Bravo,
Jr., is charged with murder for the killing of one Ramon Abiog (Criminal
Case No. 83184).
Detained in the city jail of Naga after his arrest, petitioner filed a
motion for bail based on two reasons: (a) that the evidence against him is not
strong in view of the retraction by Ferdinand del Rosario, one of the
prosecution witnesses, of his previous statement naming petitioner as the
assailant; and by that he is a minor of 16 years, entitled as such to a
privileged mitigating circumstances under Article 68 of the Revised Penal
Code which would make the murder charge against him non-capital.
On September 22, 1983, respondent judge denied the motion for lack
of merit. Explaining the denial later, he said that the quoted Article 191 is
not applicable since it could be invoked only where the minor is charged
with a bailable offense, as could be gleaned from the phrase "if unable to
furnish bail."
Against this factual backdrop, petitioner has filed the instant petition
for certiorari and mandamus, with two supplementary petitions, seeking the
release of petitioner on bail or his transfer to the custody of the MSSD
pending trial pursuant to Article 191 of P.D. No. 603. In view of the
aforesaid NBI report, the petition also seeks the issuance of a writ of
mandamus commanding respondent Judge to remand the case to the City
Fiscal of Naga for reinvestigation.
Under the Constitution, "all persons, except those charged with capital
offenses when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be
bailable by sufficient sureties." (Article TV, Section 18.) Generally,
therefore, bail is a matter of right before conviction, unless the accused is
charged with a capital offense and the evidence of guilt is strong.
The petitioner however submits that even assuming that the evidence
of guilt against him is strong, the charge of murder, as to him who is only 16
years old, cannot be capital because the death penalty cannot be imposed on
account of his minority which entitles him to a penalty reduction of one
degree. In effect, under petitioner's submission, the test to determine whether
the offense charged is capital, is the penalty to be actually imposed on him in
view of the attendant circumstances.
But respondent judge claims that petitioner has not proved his
minority. This is inaccurate. In his motion for bail, petitioner alleged that he
was a minor of 16 and this averment was never challenged by the
prosecution. Subsequently, in his memorandum in support of the motion for
bail, petitioner attached a copy of his birth certificate. And finally, after
respondent Judge had denied the motion for bail, petitioner filed a motion
for reconsideration, attaching thereto a certified true copy of his birth
certificate. Respondent Judge however refused to take cognizance of
petitioner's unchallenged minority allegedly because the certificate of birth
was not offered in evidence. This was error because evidence of petitioner's
minority was already a part of the record of the case. It was properly filed in
support of a motion. It would be a needless formality to offer it in evidence.
Respondent Judge therefore acted with grave abuse of discretion in
disregarding it.
"Evidence on motion. - When a motion is based on facts not appearing
of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits or depositions
presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter
be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions." (Rules of Court,
Rule 133, Section 7.)
SO ORDERED.