JOJO PASTOR BRAVO, JR., ETC., PETITIONER, VS. HON. MELECIO B. BORJA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Bravo versus Borja

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus filed by Jojo Pastor Bravo, Jr., a sixteen-year-old detained on a charge of murder, against Judge Melecio B. Borja of the Regional Trial Court of Naga City. Bravo asks the Supreme Court to set aside the judge's orders denying him bail and to compel a reinvestigation of his case. The case matters because it fixes the test for the capital nature of an offense in bail proceedings, and because it settles how a minor's age, once established without objection, removes the death penalty from the equation and restores bail as a matter of right.

Procedural History

Bravo was charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court of Naga City and detained in the city jail. He filed a motion for bail, which Judge Borja denied on the finding that the evidence of guilt was strong and that minority was not proved. Bravo moved for reconsideration, attaching a certified copy of his birth certificate. The Fiscal opposed on the ground of strong evidence of guilt but did not contest the minority. Judge Borja denied the motion for reconsideration. Bravo then moved to be placed in the care and custody of the Ministry of Social Services and Development under the Child and Youth Welfare Code, and that motion was likewise denied. From these orders Bravo went directly to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari and mandamus, later supplemented, seeking bail or transfer to the Ministry's custody, and a remand to the City Fiscal for reinvestigation.

Facts

Bravo was arrested and detained for the killing of Ramon Abiog. He sought bail on two grounds: that the evidence was not strong because prosecution witness Ferdinand del Rosario had retracted his statement naming Bravo as the assailant, and that Bravo was a minor of sixteen, entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance that would make the murder charge non-capital. At the hearing, del Rosario turned about again and testified against Bravo. The judge denied bail, finding the evidence of guilt strong and the minority unproved.

Bravo sought reconsideration, attaching a certified copy of his birth certificate showing he was born on February 26, 1967. The Fiscal did not contest the minority. The judge still denied reconsideration, and later refused to take cognizance of the minority because the birth certificate had not been offered in evidence.

Meanwhile, the National Bureau of Investigation regional office submitted a report finding that it was del Rosario, not Bravo, who killed Abiog. Bravo moved orally to reset the trial so the Fiscal could study the report, but the motion was denied as dilatory. He then filed a formal motion for reinvestigation, on which no action appears to have been taken. Hence the petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right, the charge of murder being capital but the accused being an established minor who cannot be sentenced to death.
• Whether or not the petitioner's minority was sufficiently proved, the birth certificate having been attached to his motions but not formally offered in evidence.
• Whether or not mandamus lies to compel the City Fiscal to reinvestigate the case in view of the National Bureau of Investigation report.

Applicable Provisions

Article Four, Section Eighteen of the Constitution provides:

All persons, except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties.

This is the source of the right to bail and its single exception, on which the first issue turns.

Section 5 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provides:

A capital offense is an offense which, under the law existing at the time of its commission, and at the time of the application to be admitted to bail, may be punished by death.

This defines capital offense by the penalty prescribed by law, not by the penalty likely to be imposed.

Rule 133, Section 7 of the Rules of Court provides:

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.

This supports the holding that evidence attached to a motion is already part of the record and need not be formally offered.

Article 191 of Presidential Decree Number 603, the Child and Youth Welfare Code, 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 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 found it unnecessary to rule on this provision once bail was granted.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the capital nature of an offense is determined by the penalty prescribed by law, not by the penalty to be actually imposed after considering modifying circumstances. To require otherwise would demand a complete trial before bail could be resolved, defeating the purpose of bail, which is provisional liberty pending trial. But the Court also held that where it is established without objection that the accused is only sixteen, he would, if convicted, receive the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law, which rules out death. The reason for withholding bail, the strong temptation to flee a probable death sentence, does not hold. Bravo was therefore entitled to bail as a matter of right.

On the second issue, the Court held that the judge erred in disregarding the minority. The age was alleged in the motion for bail and never challenged by the prosecution, and certified copies of the birth certificate were attached to the memorandum and the motion for reconsideration. Evidence attached in support of a motion is already part of the record; offering it formally would be a needless formality. The judge acted with grave abuse of discretion.

On the third issue, the Court held that a plea for reinvestigation must be addressed to the City Fiscal, who has direction and control of the prosecution. If the Fiscal unjustifiably refuses, the recourse is to appeal to the Minister of Justice. Mandamus does not lie.

Doctrine

First, the capital character of an offense for purposes of bail is measured by the penalty prescribed by law at the time of commission and at the time of the bail application, not by the penalty that would actually be imposed. Second, where the minority of the accused is established without objection, the death penalty is effectively excluded, and bail becomes a matter of right even on a capital charge. Third, evidence attached to a motion forms part of the record and need not be formally offered. Fourth, reinvestigation is a matter for the prosecutorial authority, and relief from refusal lies with the Minister of Justice, not by mandamus.

Disposition

The Court set aside the orders denying bail, fixed bail at fifteen thousand pesos, ordered Bravo's release upon posting and approval unless held for another cause, and denied the petition for mandamus to compel reinvestigation.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the capital nature of an offense is determined by the penalty prescribed by law, not the penalty actually imposable. Examiners use this case to test the bail exception for capital offenses and the effect of an unchallenged minority on the right to bail.