Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 58 views

    Virtuoso V Mun. Judge

    Uploaded by

    Peter Ah
    The Supreme Court granted the petition of Francisco Virtouso Jr. who argued that the preliminary examination conducted by the municipal judge was constitutionally deficient and the bail amount of 16,000 pesos for an alleged robbery of a TV set was excessive. While the respondent judge claimed there was no impropriety in the examination and reduced the bail amount to 8,000 pesos, the Supreme Court ordered the release of the 17-year-old petitioner on the recognizance of his parents and counsel without prejudice to further legal proceedings, in accordance with the Youth and Welfare Code. The Court also affirmed that bail should not be rendered ineffective by requiring an excessive sum.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Virtuoso V Mun. Judge

    Uploaded by

    Peter Ah
    58 views1 page
    The Supreme Court granted the petition of Francisco Virtouso Jr. who argued that the preliminary examination conducted by the municipal judge was constitutionally deficient and the bail amount of 16,000 pesos for an alleged robbery of a TV set was excessive. While the respondent judge claimed there was no impropriety in the examination and reduced the bail amount to 8,000 pesos, the Supreme Court ordered the release of the 17-year-old petitioner on the recognizance of his parents and counsel without prejudice to further legal proceedings, in accordance with the Youth and Welfare Code. The Court also affirmed that bail should not be rendered ineffective by requiring an excessive sum.

    Original Description:

    digested case of virtuoso vs mun.judge

    Original Title

    Virtuoso v Mun. Judge

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court granted the petition of Francisco Virtouso Jr. who argued that the preliminary examination conducted by the municipal judge was constitutionally deficient and the bail amount of 16,000 pesos for an alleged robbery of a TV set was excessive. While the respondent judge claimed there was no impropriety in the examination and reduced the bail amount to 8,000 pesos, the Supreme Court ordered the release of the 17-year-old petitioner on the recognizance of his parents and counsel without prejudice to further legal proceedings, in accordance with the Youth and Welfare Code. The Court also affirmed that bail should not be rendered ineffective by requiring an excessive sum.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    58 views1 page

    Virtuoso V Mun. Judge

    Uploaded by

    Peter Ah
    The Supreme Court granted the petition of Francisco Virtouso Jr. who argued that the preliminary examination conducted by the municipal judge was constitutionally deficient and the bail amount of 16,000 pesos for an alleged robbery of a TV set was excessive. While the respondent judge claimed there was no impropriety in the examination and reduced the bail amount to 8,000 pesos, the Supreme Court ordered the release of the 17-year-old petitioner on the recognizance of his parents and counsel without prejudice to further legal proceedings, in accordance with the Youth and Welfare Code. The Court also affirmed that bail should not be rendered ineffective by requiring an excessive sum.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Virtuoso v.

    Municipal Judge, 82 SCRA 191, March 21, 1978


    Facts:
    On February 23, 1978, petitioner Francisco Virtouso, Jr., who filed an application for the writ of
    habeas corpus, 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 in Bataan in 1977,
    he nevertheless reduced the amount to P8, 000.00.
    Issue:
    Whether or not the procedure by respondent Judge in ascertaining the existence of probable
    cause was constitutionally deficient?
    Ruling:
    The Supreme Court declared that the petition is granted in accordance with the terms of the
    Resolution of this Court of March 15, 1978.
    The Court issued the following Resolution:
    Acting on the verbal petition of counsel for petitioner Francisco Virtouso, Jr., the Court
    Resolved pursuant to section 191of Presidential Decree No. 603, petitioner being a 17-yearold
    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. This Court should, whenever appropriate,
    give vitality and force to the Youth and Welfare Code.
    Where, however, the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum
    that is excessive.

    You might also like