Case Digest (G.R. No. L-47841)
Facts:
Francisco Virtouso, Jr. v. Municipal Judge of Mariveles, Bataan, G.R. No. L-47841, March 21, 1978, Second Division, Fernando, J., resolves a habeas corpus petition brought by petitioner Francisco Virtouso, Jr. and decided by the Supreme Court Second Division with Justice Fernando as ponente.Petitioner filed an application for the writ of habeas corpus on February 23, 1978, claiming that the preliminary examination which led to the issuance of a warrant of arrest was a mere formality because the Municipal Judge of Mariveles failed to apply the constitutional standard in determining probable cause; petitioner also alleged that the bail set (P16,000) was excessive for the alleged robbery of a television set. The Chief of Police of Mariveles was named as the other respondent.
The Court issued the writ, returnable March 15, 1978. In his return filed March 8, 1978, the respondent judge defended the conduct of the preliminary examination and stated that bail had initially been fixed at P16,000 in accordance with a local Revised Bail Bond Guide but had been reduced by him to P8,000. Oral argument occurred March 15, 1978 before the Court, during which the Justices examined the parties and learned that petitioner was seventeen years old.
Upon discovering petitioner’s age, the Court applied the Child and Youth Welfare Code (Presidential Decree No. 603, 1974) and its amendment (Article 189 as amended by PD No. 1179) and found that a 17-year-old is a “youthful offender” eligible, in the court’s discretion, for provisional release on recognizance under Article 191 of PD 603. Acting on counsel’s verbal petition and the agreement of petitioner’s parents and counsel to act as recognizors, the Court resolved on March 15, 1978 to order petitioner’s release on recognizance of his parents and counsel, without prejudice to further proceedings in the pending criminal case. The Supreme Court’s March 21, 1978 resoluti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner entitled to relief because the preliminary examination and issuance of the warrant were constitutionally defective for failure to determine probable cause?
- Was the bail required of petitioner excessive under the Constitution?
- Was petitioner, being 17 years old, entitled to provisional release on recognizance under the Child and Youth We...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)