Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

MANOLET O. LAVIDES vs. CA  No bail was recommended.

Nonetheless,
Lavides filed separate applications for bail in
the 9 cases.
FACTS:  On 16 May 1997, the trial court issued an
order resolving Lavides' Omnibus Motion,
 On 3 April 1997, the parents of Lorelie San
finding that, (Lorelie’s case), there is
Miguel reported to the police that their
probable cause to hold the accused under
daughter, then 16 years old, had been
detention, his arrest having been made in
contacted by Manolet Lavides for an
accordance with the Rules, and thus he must
assignation that night at Lavides' room at the
therefore remain under detention until
Metropolitan Hotel in Diliman, Quezon City.
further order of the Court; and that the
 Apparently, this was not the first time the
accused is entitled to bail in all the case, and
police received reports of Lavides' activities.
that he is granted the right to post bail in the
 An entrapment operation was therefore set amount of P80,000.00 for each case or a total
in motion. At around 8:20 p.m. of the same of P800,000.00 for all the cases under certain
date, the police knocked at the door of Room conditions.
308 of the Metropolitan Hotel where Lavides
 On 20 May 1997, Lavides filed a motion to
was staying.
quash the informations against him, except
 When Lavides opened the door, the police those filed in Criminal Case Q-97-70550 or Q-
saw him with Lorelie, who was wearing only 97-70866.
a t-shirt and an underwear, whereupon they
 Pending resolution of his motion, he asked
arrested him.
the trial court to suspend the arraignment
 Based on the sworn statement of Lorelie and scheduled on 23 May 1997.
the affidavits of the arresting officers, which
 Then on 22 May 1997, he filed a motion in
were submitted at the inquest, an
which he prayed that the amounts of bail
information for violation of Article III, 5(b) of
bonds be reduced to P40,000.00 for each
RA 7610 (An Act Providing for Stronger
case and that the same be done prior to his
Deterrence and Special Protection against
arraignment.
Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination,
 On 23 May 1997, the trial court, in separate
Providing Penalties for its Violation, and
orders, denied Lavides' motions to reduce
other Purposes) was filed on 7 April 1997
bail bonds, to quash the informations, and to
against Lavides in the RTC QC.
suspend arraignment.
 On 10 April 1997, Lavides filed a:
 Accordingly, Lavides was arraigned during
(1)"Omnibus Motion For Judicial
which he pleaded not guilty to the charges
Determination of Probable Cause;
against him and then ordered him released
(2) For the Immediate Release of
upon posting bail bonds in the total amount
the Accused Unlawfully Detained on an
of P800,000.00, subject to the conditions in
Unlawful Warrantless Arrest;
the 16 May 1997 order and the "hold-
and (3) In the Event of Adverse
departure" order of 10 April 1997.
Resolution of the Above Incident, Herein
 The pre-trial conference was set on 7 June
Accused be Allowed to Bail as a Matter of
1997.
Right under the Law on Which He is
Charged."  On 2 June 1997, Lavides filed a petition for
certiorari in the Court of Appeals, assailing
 On 29 April 1997, 9 more informations for
the trial court's order, dated 16 May 1997,
child abuse were filed against Lavides by
and its two orders, dated 23 May 1997,
Lorelie San Miguel, and by three other minor
denying his motion to quash and maintaining
children, Mary Ann Tardesilla, Jennifer
the conditions set forth in its order of 16 May
Catarman, and Annalyn Talinting.
1997, respectively.
 In all the cases, it was alleged that, on various
 While the case was pending in the CA, 2 more
dates mentioned in the informations, Lavides
informations were filed against Lavides,
had sexual intercourse with complainants
bringing the total number of cases against
who had been "exploited in prostitution and
him to 12, which were all consolidated.
given money as payment for the said acts of
sexual intercourse."  On 30 June 1997, the CA rendered its
decision, invalidating the first two conditions
under 16 May 1997 order -- i.e. that (1) the
accused shall not be entitled to a waiver of The court's strategy to ensure the Lavides' presence
appearance during the trial of these cases. at the arraignment violates the latter's constitutional
 He shall and must always be present at the rights.
hearings of these cases; and
 (2) In the event that he shall not be able to do
so, his bail bonds shall be automatically
cancelled and forfeited, warrants for his
arrest shall be immediately issued and the
cases shall proceed to trial in absentia -- and
maintained the orders in all other respects.
 Lavides filed the petition for review with the
Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether the court should impose the condition that


the accused shall ensure his presence during the trial
of these cases before the bail can be granted.

RULING:

In cases where it is authorized, bail should be


granted before arraignment, otherwise the accused
may be precluded from filing a motion to quash.

For if the information is quashed and the case is


dismissed, there would then be no need for the
arraignment of the accused.

Further, the trial court could ensure Lavides'


presence at the arraignment precisely by granting
bail and ordering his presence at any stage of the
proceedings, such as arraignment.

Under Rule 114, 2(b) of the Rules on Criminal


Procedure, one of the conditions of bail is that "the
accused shall appear before the proper court
whenever so required by the court or these Rules,"
while under Rule 116, §1(b) the presence of the
accused at the arraignment is required.

To condition the grant of bail to an accused on his


arraignment would be to place him in a position
where he has to choose between:

(1) filing a motion to quash and thus delay his release


on bail because until his motion to quash can be
resolved, his arraignment cannot be held,

and (2) foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so


that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be
released on bail.

These scenarios certainly undermine the accused's


constitutional right not to be put on trial except upon
valid complaint or information sufficient to charge
him with a crime and his right to bail.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi