Facts:

In the case of Jojo Pastor Bravo, Jr. vs. Hon. Melecio B. Borja, et al., G.R. No. 65228, decided on February 18, 1985, the petitioner, Jojo Pastor Bravo, Jr., was charged with murder for the killing of Ramon Abiog in the Regional Trial Court of Naga City (Criminal Case No. 83-184). Following his arrest, Bravo was detained in the city jail and subsequently filed a motion for bail. He argued that the evidence against him was weak due to the retraction of a statement by Ferdinand del Rosario, a prosecution witness who initially named Bravo as the assailant. Additionally, Bravo claimed that he was a minor, only 16 years old, which entitled him to a privileged mitigating circumstance under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, thereby making the murder charge non-capital.

During the hearing, del Rosario retracted his retraction and testified against Bravo, leading Judge Melecio B. Borja to deny the bail motion, asserting that the evidence of guilt was strong and that Bravo...

Facts:

1. Background of the Case:

   • Petitioner Jojo Pastor Bravo, Jr., was charged with murder for the killing of Ramon Abiog (Criminal Case No. 83-184) in the Regional Trial Court of Naga City.
   • He was detained in the Naga City jail after his arrest.

2. Motion for Bail:

   • Petitioner filed a motion for bail, citing two grounds:
     • The evidence against him was not strong due to the retraction of Ferdinand del Rosario, a prosecution witness, who initially named petitioner as the assailant but later recanted.
     • Petitioner claimed to be a minor of 16 years old, entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, which would make the murder charge non-capital.

3. Hearing and Denial of Bail:

   • During the hearing, del Rosario reversed his retraction and testified against petitioner.
   • Respondent Judge Melecio B. Borja denied the motion for bail, finding that the evidence of guilt was strong and petitioner’s minority was not proven.

4. Motion for Reconsideration:

   • Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching his birth certificate (showing he was born on February 26, 1967) to prove his minority.
   • The Fiscal opposed the motion, arguing that the evidence of guilt was strong but did not contest petitioner’s minority.
   • Respondent Judge denied the motion for reconsideration on September 21, 1983.

5. Motion for Custody Transfer:

   • Petitioner filed a motion to be placed in the care of the Ministry of Social Services and Development (MSSD) under Article 191 of Presidential Decree No. 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Code).
   • Respondent Judge denied this motion, stating that Article 191 only applies to bailable offenses.

6. NBI Report:

   • The NBI Regional Office at Naga City submitted a report on September 22, 1983, finding that Ferdinand del Rosario, not petitioner, was the killer.
   • Petitioner moved for reinvestigation, but the court denied the motion as dilatory.

7. Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus:

   • Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus, seeking:
     • Release on bail or transfer to MSSD custody.
     • A writ of mandamus to compel reinvestigation of the case.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Bail as a Matter of Right:

   • Under the Constitution, bail is a matter of right unless the accused is charged with a capital offense and the evidence of guilt is strong. However, for a minor who cannot be sentenced to death, the offense is effectively non-capital, making bail a matter of right.

2. Determination of Capital Offense:

   • A capital offense is determined by the penalty prescribed by law at the time of the crime and the application for bail, not by the penalty to be actually imposed after considering mitigating circumstances.

3. Proof of Minority:

   • Petitioner’s minority was sufficiently proven through his birth certificate, which was part of the record. The respondent judge erred in disregarding this evidence.

4. Reinvestigation:

   • The authority to conduct a reinvestigation lies with the City Fiscal, and the court cannot compel such action through mandamus unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the orders denying bail to petitioner and fixed bail at P15,000.00. Petitioner’s release was ordered upon posting and approval of the bail. The petition for mandamus to compel reinvestigation was denied. The decision was immediately executory.