2 Lavides V CA

Lavides v. CA court to suspend the arraignment scheduled.
Thereafter, he filed a motion in

G.R. No. 129670 which he prayed that the amounts of bail bonds be reduced and that the
February 1, 2000 same be done prior to his arraignment. However, this motion was denied
Accordingly, petitioner was arraigned during which he pleaded not guilty to

Facts: On 3 April 1997, Lavides was arrested for child abuse under RA the charges against him and then ordered him released upon posting bail
7610. He was arrested without a warrant as a result of an entrapment bonds, subject to the conditions in the May 16, 1997 order and the "hold-
conducted by the police. In the evening of that day, the police knocked at the departure" order of April 10, 1997.
door of the hotel room where petitioner was staying. When petitioner opened
the door, the police saw him with Lorelie, who was wearing only a t-shirt and Thus, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the CA assailing the trial courts
an underwear, whereupon they arrested him. orders. CA invalidated the first two conditions in 16 May Order but but ruled
that the issue concerning the validity of the condition making arraignment a
Based on the sworn statement of complainant and the affidavits of the prerequisite for the approval of petitioner’s bail bonds to be moot and
arresting officers, which were submitted at the inquest, an information for academic.
violation of Art. III, 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 was filed on April 7, 1997 against
petitioner in the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, where it was docketed as With respect to the denial of petitioners motion to quash the informations
Criminal Case No. Q-97-70550. against him, the appellate court held that petitioner could not question the
same in a petition for certiorari before it, but what he must do was to go to
On 10 April 1997, petitioner filed an “Omnibus Motion for Judicial trial and to reiterate the grounds of his motion to quash on appeal should the
Determination of Probable Cause, for the Immediate Release of the Accused decision be adverse to him. Thus, this petition before SC.
Unlawfully Detained on an Unlawful Warrantless Arrest and in event of the
adverse resolution, that he granted Bail. Issue: Whether the conditions for the grant of bail in 16 May Order was
valid?
Nine more informations for child abuse were filed against petitioner. No bail
was recommended but nonetheless petitioner filed separate bail applications. Ruling:
On 16 May 1997, the trial court resolved the Omnibus Motion. It found  CA declared conditions (a) and (b) invalid but declined to pass upon
probable cause to hold accused under detention, his arrest having the validity of condition (d) on the ground that the issue had become
been made in accordance with the Rules. The accused is entitled to bail moot and academic.
under following conditions:
 The Court agrees with the petitioner that CA should have
a) The accused shall not be entitled to a waiver of appearance determined the validity of the conditions because his
during the trial of these cases. He shall and must always be arraignment was held in pursuance of these conditions for bail.
present at the hearings of these cases;
b) In the event that he shall not be able to do so, his bail bonds  In requiring that petitioner be first arraigned before he could be
shall be automatically cancelled and forfeited, warrants for his granted bail, the trial court apprehended that if petitioner were
arrest shall be immediately issued and the cases shall proceed released on bail he could, by being absent, prevent his early
to trial in absentia; arraignment and thereby delay his trial until the complainants got
c) The hold-departure Order of this Court dated April 10, 1997 tired and lost interest in their cases. Hence, to ensure his presence
stands; and at the arraignment, approval of petitioner’s bail bonds should be
d) Approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after the deferred until he could be arraigned. After that, even if petitioner
arraignment to enable this Court to immediately acquire does not appear, trial can proceed as long as he is notified of the
jurisdiction over the accused. date of hearing and his failure to appear is unjustified, since under
the Constitution, trial in absentia is authorized. This seems to be the
Prior to arraignment, petitioner filed a motion to quash the some of the
informations against him. Pending resolution of his motion, he asked the trial
theory of the trial court in its May 16, 1997 order conditioning the bail to petitioner is invalid, his arraignment and the subsequent
grant of bail to petitioner on his arraignment. proceedings against him are valid.
 This theory is mistaken. In the first place, as the trial court itself
acknowledged, 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. In the second place, the trial court
could ensure the presence of petitioner at the arraignment precisely
by granting bail and ordering his presence at any stage of the
proceedings, such as arraignment.
 On the other hand, 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.
 With regard to the conditions for the grant of bail, the Court ruled:
o The condition of approval of the bail bonds shall be made

only after arraignment should have been declared void.
o The condition that accused cannot waive his appearance at
the trial but that he must be present at the hearings of the
case is valid and is in accordance with Rule 114.
o The failure to appear at trial without justification and due
notice to him or his bondsman shall be deemed an express
waiver of his right to be present, in such case trial shall
proceed in absentia which is allowed under the Constitution.
 Although this condition is invalid, it does not follow that the

arraignment of petitioner on May 23, 1997 was also invalid. The
arraignment did not emanate from the invalid condition that "approval
of the bail bonds shall be made only after the arraignment." Even
without such a condition, the arraignment of petitioner could
not be omitted. In sum, although the condition for the grant of

2 Lavides V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Lavides V CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Lavides V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lavides v. CA court to suspend the arraignment scheduled.

Thereafter, he filed a motion in

Accordingly, petitioner was arraigned during which he pleaded not guilty to

 On the other hand, to condition the grant of bail to an accused on

o The condition of approval of the bail bonds shall be made

 Although this condition is invalid, it does not follow that the

You might also like