GR 47841; (March, 1978) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47841 March 21, 1978
FRANCISCO VIRTOUSO, JR., petitioner, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF MARIVELES, BATAAN, and CHIEF OF POLICE OF MARIVELES, BATAAN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Francisco Virtouso, Jr. filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his detention. He was arrested for alleged robbery of a television set. He contended that the preliminary examination conducted by the respondent Municipal Judge, which led to the issuance of the warrant for his arrest, was constitutionally infirm for failing to properly determine probable cause. Additionally, he alleged that the bail set at P16,000.00 was excessive for the offense charged. The Court issued the writ, and in his return, the respondent Judge defended the validity of the preliminary examination and noted that, while the bail was set per a local guide, he had already reduced it to P8,000.00.
ISSUE
The primary issues were whether the warrant of arrest was issued without a proper determination of probable cause and whether the bail imposed was excessive. However, during oral arguments, a pivotal new fact emerged that rendered a decision on these constitutional questions unnecessary.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and ordered the petitioner’s release, but not on the constitutional grounds he initially raised. During intensive questioning at the hearing, it was ascertained that petitioner Francisco Virtouso, Jr. was a seventeen-year-old minor. As such, he was classified as a “youthful offender” under the provisions of the Child and Youth Welfare Code (Presidential Decree No. 603). The law defines a youthful offender as one over nine but under eighteen years at the time of the offense and allows for provisional release on recognizance at the court’s discretion.
Pursuant to Section 191 of P.D. No. 603, the Court resolved to release the petitioner on the recognizance of his parents and his counsel, who agreed to act as such in open court. This disposition was made without prejudice to any further proceedings in the pending case against him. The Court emphasized its duty to give vitality to the Child and Youth Welfare Code, which implements the constitutional mandate for the State to promote the well-being of the youth. By applying this specific statutory provision, the Court found a conclusive legal basis for release, thereby obviating the need to rule on the constitutional issues regarding probable cause and excessive bail. The resolution served as a reminder to judges to be vigilant in protecting the rights of the accused, especially during martial law, and to adhere to the constitutional prohibition against excessive bail.