Lavides v. CA d.

Approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after the

G.R. No. 129670 | 324 SCRA 321 | February 1, 2000 | Mendoza, J. arraignment to enable this Court to immediately acquire
Petitioner: MANOLET O. LAVIDES jurisdiction over the accused;
Respondents: HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS; HON. ROSALINA L. 6. On May 20, 1997, petitioner filed a motion to quash the information.
LUNA PISON, Judge Presiding over Branch 107, RTC, Quezon City; and Pending resolution of his motion, he asked the trial court to suspend the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES arraignment scheduled on May 23, 1997. Then on May 22, 1997, he filed
BAIL a motion in which he prayed that the amounts of bail bonds be reduced to
P40,000.00 for each case and that it be done prior to his arraignment.
FACTS 7. On May 23, 1997, the trial court, denied petitioners motions to reduce bail
1. Manolet Lavides was arrested on April 3, 1997 for child abuse under R.A. bonds, to quash the information, and to suspend arraignment. Accordingly,
No. 7610. His arrest was made without a warrant as a result of an petitioner was arraigned during which he pleaded not guilty.
entrapment conducted by the police. On April 3, 1997, the parents of 8. On June 2, 1997, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of
complainant Lorelie San Miguel reported to the police that their daughter, Appeals, assailing the trial courts order, dated May 16, 1997, and its two
then 16 years old, had been contacted by petitioner for an assignation that orders, dated May 23, 1997, denying his motion to quash and maintaining
night at petitioners room at the Metropolitan Hotel in Diliman, Quezon City. the conditions set forth in its order of May 16, 1997.
At around 8:20 in the evening of April 3, 1997, the police knocked at the 9. While the case was pending in the Court of Appeals, two more information
door of Room 308 of the Metropolitan Hotel where petitioner was staying. were filed against petitioner. Total number of cases against him is now 12,
When petitioner opened the door, the police saw him with Lorelie, who which were all consolidated.
was wearing only a t-shirt and an underwear, whereupon they arrested 10. On June 30, 1997, the Court of Appeals invalidated the first two conditions
him. An information for violation of Art. III, 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 was filed imposed in the May 16, 1997 order for the grant of bail to petitioner but
on April 7, 1997 against petitioner in the RTC, Quezon City. ruled that the issue concerning the validity of the condition making
2. On April 10, 1997, petitioner filed an "Omnibus Motion (1) For Judicial arraignment a prerequisite for the approval of petitioner’s bail bonds to be
Determination of Probable Cause; (2) For the Immediate Release of the moot and academic.
Accused Unlawfully Detained on an Unlawful Warrantless Arrest; and (3) a. The Court of Appeals thought that the aforesaid conditions in the
In the Event of Adverse Resolution of the Incident, Herein Accused be May 16, 1997 order were contrary to Art. III, 14(2) of the
Allowed to Bail as a Matter of Right under the Law on Which He is Constitution which provides that "after arraignment, trial may
Charged." proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided
3. On April 29, 1997, nine more informations for child abuse were filed that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
against petitioner by the same complainant, Lorelie San Miguel, and by unjustifiable."
three other minor children, Mary Ann Tardesilla, Jennifer Catarman, and b. With respect to the denial of petitioners motion to quash the
Annalyn Talingting. In all the cases, it was alleged that, on various dates information against him, the CA held that petitioner could not
mentioned in the information, petitioner had sexual intercourse with question the same in a petition for certiorari before it, but what he
complainants who had been "exploited in prostitution and given money by must do was to go to trial and to reiterate the grounds of his motion
petitioner as payment for the said acts of sexual intercourse." to quash on appeal should the decision be adverse to him.
4. No bail was recommended. Petitioner filed separate applications for bail 11. Petitioner takes issue with the Court of Appeals with respect to its
in the nine cases. treatment of condition (d) of order of the trial court which makes petitioners
5. On May 16, 1997, the RTC issued an order finding probable cause to hold arraignment a prerequisite to the approval of his bail bonds. His contention
the accused under detention, his arrest having been made in accordance is that this condition is void and that his arraignment was also invalid
with the Rules. It ruled that accused is entitled to bail in the amount of because it was held pursuant to such invalid condition.
P800,000 (80,000 for each case) under the following conditions:
a. He shall not be entitled to a waiver of appearance during the trial ISSUES
of these cases. He shall and must always be present at the 1. W/N the conditions imposed by respondent Judge on petitioner’s bail bond
hearings of these cases; is void. – the condition that it "shall be made only after his arraignment" is
b. In the event that he shall not be able to do so, his bail bonds shall VOID; conditions (a) and (b) are vaild.
be automatically cancelled and forfeited. 2. W/N the arraignment of petitioner is invalid – NO
c. The hold-departure Order of this Court stands; and
Page 1 of 2
3. W/N petitioner is liable for just one crime regardless of the number of victims (4) and the number of acts of sexual intercourse committed with
sexual acts allegedly committed by him and the number of children with them (12). He argues that the act of sexual intercourse is only a means of
whom he had sexual intercourse - NO committing the offense so that the acts of sexual intercourse/
lasciviousness with minors attributed to him should not be subject of
RULING & RATIO separate information. He cites the affidavits of the alleged victims which
1. The trial court apprehended that if petitioner were released on bail he show that their involvement with him constitutes an "unbroken chain of
could, by being absent, prevent his early arraignment and thereby delay events," i.e., the first victim was the one who introduced the second to
his trial until the complainants got tired and lost interest in their cases. This petitioner and so on. Petitioner says that child abuse is similar to the crime
theory is mistaken. In the first place, in cases where it is authorized, bail of large-scale illegal recruitment where there is only a single offense. In
should be granted before arraignment, otherwise the accused may be the alternative, he contends that, at the most, only four informations,
precluded from filing a motion to quash. For if the information is quashed corresponding to the number of alleged child victims, can be filed against
and the case is dismissed, there would then be no need for the him.
arraignment of the accused. In the second place, the trial court could a. Each incident of sexual intercourse and lascivious act with a child
ensure the presence of petitioner at the arraignment precisely by granting under the circumstances mentioned in Art. III, 5 of R.A. No. 7160
bail and ordering his presence at any stage of the proceedings, such as is a separate and distinct offense. The offense is similar to rape or
arraignment. Under Rule 114, 2(b) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, act of lasciviousness under the RPC in which each act of rape or
one of the conditions of bail is that "the accused shall appear before the lascivious conduct should be the subject of a separate information.
proper court whenever so required by the court or these Rules," while This conclusion is confirmed by Art. III, 5(b) of R.A. No. 7160,
under Rule 116, 1(b) the presence of the accused at the arraignment is which provides that when the victim is under twelve (12) years of
required. age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335,
a. To condition the grant of bail to an accused on his arraignment paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended,
would be to place him in a position where he has to choose the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the
between (1) filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release on case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct
bail because until his motion to quash can be resolved, his when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be
arraignment cannot be held, and (2) foregoing the filing of a reclusion temporal in its medium period.
motion to quash so that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter
be released on bail. These scenarios certainly undermine the DISPOSITION
accused’s constitutional right not to be put on trial except upon The decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE. Orders dated May 16, 1997 and
valid complaint or information sufficient to charge him with a crime May 23, 1997 of the RTC are valid, with the exception of condition (d) (making
arraignment a prerequisite to the grant of bail to petitioner), which is void.
and his right to bail.
b. The condition imposed in the trial courts order of May 16, 1997 NOTES
that the accused cannot waive his appearance at the trial but that The elements of the offense under Sec 5(b) of RA 7610 are as follows: (1) the
he must be present at the hearings of the case is valid and is in accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) that said act
accordance with Rule 114. For another condition of bail under is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse;
Rule 114, 2(c) is that "The failure of the accused to appear at the and (3) the child, whether male or female, is or is deemed under 18 years of age.
trial without justification despite due notice to him or his bondsman
shall be deemed an express waiver of his right to be present on Exploitation in prostitution or other sexual abuse occurs when the child indulges in
the date specified in the notice. In such case, trial shall proceed in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other
absentia." consideration; or (b) under the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate, or group.
2. Although the last condition is invalid, it does not follow that the arraignment Stages of the proceedings when the accused is not allowed to be absent:
of petitioner was also invalid. Even without such a condition, the (a) arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilt
arraignment of petitioner could not be omitted. In sum, although the (b) during trial whenever necessary for identification purposes
condition for the grant of bail to petitioner is invalid, his arraignment and (c) at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in which case the
the subsequent proceedings against him are valid. accused may appear by counsel or representative. At such stages of the
3. Petitioners contention is that the 12 information filed against him allege proceedings, his presence is required and cannot be waived.
only one offense of child abuse, regardless of the number of alleged
Page 2 of 2