GR L 65228; (February, 1985) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-65228 February 18, 1985
JOJO PASTOR BRAVO, JR., petitioner, vs. HON. MELECIO B. BORJA, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jojo Pastor Bravo, Jr., was charged with murder and detained. He filed a motion for bail, arguing the evidence against him was not strong due to a witness retraction and that, as a 16-year-old minor, he was entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance under the Revised Penal Code, making the offense non-capital for him. After a hearing where the witness recanted his retraction, respondent Judge Melecio B. Borja denied bail, finding the evidence of guilt strong and minority unproven. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching a certified birth certificate proving his age of 16, which the prosecution did not contest. The judge denied reconsideration, later also denying a subsequent motion to transfer petitioner to the custody of the Ministry of Social Services and Development under Article 191 of P.D. No. 603, ruling the provision only applied to bailable offenses. Meanwhile, an NBI report exonerated petitioner and implicated the prosecution witness. Petitioner filed petitions for certiorari and mandamus seeking bail, transfer to MSSD custody, and a reinvestigation order.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether petitioner, a minor charged with murder, is entitled to bail as a matter of right.
RULING
Yes, petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right. The constitutional right to bail is withheld only for those charged with a capital offense where evidence of guilt is strong. A capital offense is defined under the Rules of Court as one punishable by death at the time of commission and application for bail. Murder is punishable by reclusion temporal maximum to death, thus a capital offense. However, the Court ruled that for a minor who cannot, by law, be sentenced to death due to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, the offense is effectively non-capital. The constitutional rationale for denying bail—the strong temptation to flee when facing a probable death sentence—does not apply where the death penalty is legally impermissible.
The Court found respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding petitioner’s proven minority. Petitioner’s birth certificate, attached to his motions and uncontested by the prosecution, constituted sufficient evidence on record. Formal offer in evidence was unnecessary for documents submitted in support of a motion under Rule 133, Section 7 of the Rules of Court. With minority established, the charge against petitioner was non-capital, entitling him to bail as a matter of right. The Court fixed bail at P15,000.00 and ordered his release upon approval. The ancillary plea for mandamus to compel reinvestigation was denied, as such a request is primarily addressed to the City Fiscal, subject to appeal to the Minister of Justice.