Bravo V Borja

G.R. No.
L-65228 February 18, 1985

JOJO PASTOR BRAVO, JR., ETC., petitioner,
vs.
HON. MELECIO B. BORJA, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS:
 Petitioner Jojo Pastor Bravo, Jr., is charged with murder for the killing of one Ramon Abiog (Criminal Case No. 83-184). He was
detained in the city jail of Naga, 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 (b) that he is a minor of 16 years, entitled as such to a privileged mitigating circumstance under Article 68
of the Revised Penal Code which would make the murder charge against him non-capital.
 After a hearing during which the retracting witness (del Rosario) presented by petitioner made another turn-about and
declared against the latter, respondent Judge Melecio B. Borja denied the motion for bail on the finding that the evidence of
petitioner's guilt is strong and his minority was not proved.
 Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration stating that his minority had been proved by his birth certificate which was
attached to the memorandum in support of his motion for bail, showing that he was born on February 26, 1967, that his
minority had never been challenged by the fiscal, and that the offense charged, as regards petitioner, is not capital
because even if convicted, he could not be sentenced to death because of his minority. Respondent judge denied the
motion for reconsideration.
 Failing in his bid for bail, petitioner then filed a motion with the lower court praying that he be placed in the care and custody
of the Ministry of Social Services and Development (MSSD) pursuant to Article 191 of Presidential Decree No. 603 (Child and
Youth Welfare Code), which provides “— A youthful offender held for physical and mental examination or trial or pending
appeal, if unable to furnish bail, shall from time to time (sic) of his arrest be committed to the care of the Department of
Social Welfare or the local rehabilitation center or a detention home in the province or city which shall be responsible for his
appearance in court whenever required...... . The court may, in its discretion upon recommendation of the Department of Social
Welfare or other agency or agencies authorized by the Court, release a youthful offender on recognizance. to the custody of
his parents or other suitable person who shall be responsible for his appearance whenever required.”
 Respondent judge denied motion due t lack of merit as this is only applicable for bailable offenses.
ISSUE:
1. WON in determining the meaning “charged with a capital offense” the consideration is the penalty to be actually
imposed on the accused.
2. WON petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right.(with respect to the issue of whether it is necessary that he be
placed under MSSD custody)
RULING :
1. No, the phrase “charged with a capital offense” is determined by the penalty imposed by law with reference to which it is
relatively easy to ascertain whether the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. Moreover, when the Constitution or the
law speaks of evidence of guilt, it evidently refers to a finding of innocence or culpability, regardless of the modifying
circumstances.
To allow bail on the basis of the penalty to be actually imposed would require a consideration not only of the evidence of the
commission of the crime but also evidence of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. There would then be a need for a
complete trial, after which the judge would be just about ready to render a decision in the case. As perceptively observed by
the Solicitor General, such procedure would defeat the purpose of bail, which is to entitle the accused to provisional liberty
pending trial.
2. YES, the petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right.

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 IV, 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 charge against petitioner is murder qualified by treachery and attended by two aggravating circumstances: evident
premeditation and nocturnity. Punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, the crime is therefore a capital
offense.
Nevertheless, where it has been established without objection that the accused is only 16 years old, it follows that, if convicted,
he would be given "the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law," which effectively rules out the death penalty. (in effect
dili gihapon kinahanglan og trial)

Bravo V Borja

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bravo V Borja

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-65228 February 18, 1985

2. YES, the petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right.

You might also like