Jesus as Barrabas' first name does not appear in any Latin manuscripts. The reason it appears in the Critical Greek text - from which the CEV seems to have been derived - is explained in Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament:
The reading preserved today in several Greek manuscripts and early
versions was known to Origen, who declares in his commentary on the
passage, “In many copies it is not stated that Barabbas was also
called Jesus, and perhaps [the omission is] right.” (Origen discloses
in what follows his reason for disapproving of the reading Jesus
Barabbas; it cannot be right, he implies, because “in the whole range
of the scriptures we know that no one who is a sinner [is called]
In a tenth century uncial manuscript S 028 and in about twenty
minuscule manuscripts a marginal comment states: “In many ancient
copies which I have met with I found Barabbas himself likewise called
‘Jesus’; that is, the question of Pilate stood there as follows, Τίνα
θέλετε ἀπὸ τῶν δύο ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν, Ἰησοῦν τὸν Βαραββᾶν ἢ Ἰησοῦν τὸν
λεγόμενον Χριστόν; for apparently the paternal name of the robber was
‘Barabbas,’ which is interpreted ‘Son of the teacher.’ ” This
scholium, which is usually assigned in the manuscripts either to
Anastasius bishop of Antioch (perhaps latter part of the sixth
century) or to Chrysostom, is in one manuscript attributed to Origen,
who may indeed be its ultimate source.
Although the CT committee admitted the phrase Ἰησοῦν and Ἰησοῦν τὸν before Βαραββᾶν in Matthew 27:16 and 27:17, respectively, the Greek text was enclosed in square brackets. The reading was assigned certainty category "C", indicating that "the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text."
Augustine seems to have been the only Latin (pre-schism) Church Father to have commented specifically on these verses (On the Harmony of the Gospels, III.VIII.32) and he makes no mention of Barrabas' first name possibly being "Jesus".