Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1978 > March 1978 Decisions > G.R. No. L-47841 March 21, 1978 - FRANCISCO VIRTOUSO, JR. v. MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF MARIVELES, BATAAN, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-47841. March 21, 1978.]

FRANCISCO VIRTOUSO, JR., Petitioner, v. MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF MARIVELES, BATAAN, and CHIEF OF POLICE OF MARIVELES, BATAAN, Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Petitioner filed an application for habeas corpus with the Supreme Court on the grounds that the preliminary investigation conducted by respondent Judge which led to the issuance of a warrant for his arrest was constitutionally deficient, and that the bail recommended was excessive. During the oral argument however, it was ascertained that petitioner was a seventeen-year old minor entitled to the protection and the benefits of the Child and Youth Welfare Code, particularly the provision affording youthful offenders the opportunity to be provisionally released on recognizance at the discretion of the Court.

The Supreme Court without passing upon the issue of whether or not the preliminary investigation conducted was constitutionally deficient resolved to release petitioner on recognizance pursuant to the provision of the Child and Youth Welfare Code without prejudice to further proceedings of his pending criminal case.

Petition granted in accordance with the Court’s resolution.


SYLLABUS


1. CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE (PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 603); YOUTHFUL OFFENDER; DEFINED. — Under the Child and Youth Welfare Code, a youthful offender is one who is over nine years but under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.

2. ID.; ID.; RELEASE ON RECOGNIZANCE — A youthful offender may be provisionally released on recognizance at the discretion of the court

3. ID.; A CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLEMENTATION. — The Supreme Court should, whenever appropriate, give vitality and force to the Child and Youth Welfare Code which is an implementation of Article II, Section 5 of the Constitution which provides that the State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote their physical, intellectual, and social well-being.

4. APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS; GROUNDS RELIED UPON NEED NOT BE PASSED UPON AND PETITIONER RELEASED ON RECOGNIZANCE WHERE HE IS A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER. — Where petitioner in a habeas corpus application is a minor entitled to the protection and benefits of the Child and Youth Welfare Code, the Supreme Court may resolve to order his release on recognizance without the need of passing upon the issue raised in the petition of whether or not the preliminary investigation leading to the issuance of the warrant for his arrest was constitutionally deficient

5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED. — Judges should be on the alert lest by sloth or indifference or due to the economic or social standing of the alleged offended party, the rights of an accused, instead of being honored, are disregarded.

6. ID.; ID.; RIGHT TO BAIL; BAN ON EXCESSIVE BAIL. — Where the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum that is excessive.


R E S O L U T I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


Petitioner Francisco Virtouso, Jr., who filed an application for the writ of habeas corpus on February 23, 1978, premised his plea for liberty primarily on the ground that the preliminary examination which led to the issuance of a warrant of arrest against him was a useless formality as respondent Municipal Judge of Mariveles, Bataan, 1 failed to meet the strict standard required by the Constitution to ascertain whether there was a probable cause. 2 He likewise alleged that aside from the constitutional infirmity that tainted the procedure followed in the preliminary examination, the bail imposed was clearly excessive. 3 It was in the amount of P16,000.00, the alleged robbery of a TV set being imputed to petitioner. As prayed for, the Court issued a writ of habeas corpus, returnable to it on Wednesday, March 15, 1978. Respondent Judge, in his return filed on March 8, 1978, justified the issuance of the warrant of arrest, alleging that there was no impropriety in the way the preliminary examination was conducted. As to the excessive character of the bail, he asserted that while it was fixed in accordance with the Revised Bail Bond Guide issued by the Executive Judge of Bataan in 1977, he nevertheless reduced the amount to P8,000.00.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Petitioner’s counsel and respondent Municipal Judge orally argued the matter on March 15, 1978. In the course of intensive questioning by the members of this Court, especially Justices Barredo, Aquino and Santos, it was ascertained that petitioner is a seventeen-year old minor entitled to the protection and benefits of the Child and Youth Welfare Code, 4 a youthful offender being defined therein as "one who is over nine years but under eighteen years of age at the time of the commission of the offense." 5 As such, he could be provisionally released on recognizance in the discretion of a court. 6 Accordingly, after the hearing, the Court issued the following resolution: "Acting on the verbal petition of counsel for petitioner Francisco Virtouso, Jr., the Court Resolved pursuant to section 191 of Presidential Decree No. 603, petitioner being a 17-year old minor, to [order] the release of the petitioner on the recognizance of his parents Francisco Virtouso, Sr. and Manuela Virtouso and his counsel, Atty. Guillermo B. Bandonil, who, in open court, agreed to act in such capacity, without prejudice to further proceedings in a pending case against petitioner being taken in accordance with law." 7 This Court should, whenever appropriate, give vitality and force to the Youth and Welfare Code, which is an implementation of this specific constitutional mandate: "The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote their physical, intellectual, and social well-being." 8

Thus was the petition resolved, without the need of passing upon the issue of whether or not the procedure by respondent Judge in ascertaining the existence of probable cause was constitutionally deficient. Nonetheless, it must ever be kept in mind by occupants of the bench that they should always be on the alert lest by sloth or indifference or due to the economic or social standing of the alleged offended party, as was intimated in this petition, the rights of an accused, instead of being honored, are disregarded. There is much more importance attached to the immunities of an individual during a period of martial law, which in itself is a creature of the Constitution as a mode of coping with grave emergency situations. It is equally pertinent to state that there should be fealty to the constitutional ban against excessive bail being required. There is relevance to this excerpt from De la Camara v. Enage: 9 "Where, however, the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum that is excessive. So the Constitution commands. It is understandable why. If there were no such prohibition, the right to bail becomes meaningless. It would have been more forthright if no mention of such a guarantee were found in the fundamental law. It is not to be lost sight of that that United States Constitution limits itself to a prohibition against excessive bail. As construed in the latest American decision, ‘the sole permissible function of money bail is to assure the accused’s presence at trial, and declared that "bail set at a higher figure than an amount reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose is ‘excessive’ under the Eighth Amendment." ‘" 10

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted in accordance with the terms of the Resolution of this Court of March 15, 1978 as set forth above.

Barredo, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion Jr. and Santos, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. The Chief of Police of Mariveles, Bataan was named as the other Respondent.

2. According to Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall not be violated, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produced, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. According to Article IV, Section 18 of the Constitution: "All persons, except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong, shall before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties. Excessive bail shall not be required."cralaw virtua1aw library

4. Presidential Decree 603 (1974).

5. The Child and Youth Welfare Code, Article 189, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1179 (1977).

6. Ibid, Article 191.

7. Resolution of March 15, 1978.

8. Article II, Section 5 of the Constitution.

9. L-32951-2, September 17, 1971, 41 SCRA 1.

10. Ibid, 8.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1978 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-1597 March 1, 1978 - OSCAR R. VICTORIANO v. ABRAHAM B. ALVIOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46366 March 8, 1978 - DEMOCRITO SILVESTRE v. MILITARY COMMISSION NO. 21, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46608 March 8, 1978 - ELENA VALDEZ, ET AL. v. AGUSTIN C. BAGASO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47771 March 11, 1978 - PEDRO G. PERALTA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40904 March 16, 1978 - WORLD WIDE TRAVEL SERVICE, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31077 March 17, 1978 - ARABAY, INC. v. SERAFIN SALVADOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31399 March 17, 1978 - ELISEO M. BLANCAFLOR v. ALFREDO C. LAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31812 March 17, 1978 - JUAN COJUANGCO v. PIO R. MARCOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32147-49 March 17, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS LIERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38807 March 17, 1978 - DOROTEO F. BALA, ET AL. v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 1308-CFI March 21, 1978 - SATURNINO O. PASCUA v. MAGNO B. PABLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47540 March 21, 1978 - IN RE: RENATO C. DAÑGANAN, ET AL. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47841 March 21, 1978 - FRANCISCO VIRTOUSO, JR. v. MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF MARIVELES, BATAAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47883 March 25, 1978 - LAKAS NG BAYAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 1770 March 28, 1978 - IGNACIO REYDADO v. CARMENCITA R. DE CASTRO

  • G.R. No. L-46681 March 28, 1978 - ANA I. RABANAL v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26407 March 31, 1978 - EUSEBIO MENDOZA v. LA MALLORCA BUS COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-35927 March 31, 1978 - BENEDICTO PADASAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41747 March 31, 1978 - ENCARNACION BELARMINO, ET AL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42020 March 31, 1978 - SUPERIOR CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46562 March 31, 1978 - VASSAR INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION v. FRANCISCO L. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47222-27 March 31, 1978 - VICENTE T. TAN, ET AL. v. MILITARY COMMISSION NO. 5