Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 35 views

    Lavides v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Steve Ambalong
    The Supreme Court held that arraignment is not a prerequisite for bail bond approval in cases where bail is authorized. The trial court erred in requiring the accused's arraignment before approving his bail bond. Bail should be granted before arraignment to allow the accused to file a motion to quash the charges. While ensuring the accused's presence at arraignment, the trial court violated the accused's constitutional right to post bail by denying it prior to arraignment.

    Copyright:

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

    Lavides v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Steve Ambalong
    35 views1 page
    The Supreme Court held that arraignment is not a prerequisite for bail bond approval in cases where bail is authorized. The trial court erred in requiring the accused's arraignment before approving his bail bond. Bail should be granted before arraignment to allow the accused to file a motion to quash the charges. While ensuring the accused's presence at arraignment, the trial court violated the accused's constitutional right to post bail by denying it prior to arraignment.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court held that arraignment is not a prerequisite for bail bond approval in cases where bail is authorized. The trial court erred in requiring the accused's arraignment before approving his bail bond. Bail should be granted before arraignment to allow the accused to file a motion to quash the charges. While ensuring the accused's presence at arraignment, the trial court violated the accused's constitutional right to post bail by denying it prior to arraignment.

    Copyright:

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

    Lavides v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Steve Ambalong
    The Supreme Court held that arraignment is not a prerequisite for bail bond approval in cases where bail is authorized. The trial court erred in requiring the accused's arraignment before approving his bail bond. Bail should be granted before arraignment to allow the accused to file a motion to quash the charges. While ensuring the accused's presence at arraignment, the trial court violated the accused's constitutional right to post bail by denying it prior to arraignment.

    Copyright:

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

    LAVIDES v.

    CA

    G.R. No. 129670, Feb 1, 2000

    FACTS:

    ➢ Manolet Lavides was arrested without a warrant during a police entrapment operation prompted
    by reports from the parents of complainant Lorelie San Miguel. The reports indicated that
    Lavides had contacted their 16-year-old daughter for a meeting at his room in the Metropolitan
    Hotel. Lavides was charged with violation of RA 7610 and filed a motion arguing that the
    warrantless arrest was illegal and he should be allowed to post bail. Additional child abuse
    charges were filed against him, and although no bail was recommended, Lavides applied for
    bail in each case.
    ➢ The trial court granted Lavides the right to post bail under certain conditions, including his
    mandatory appearance during the trial and the cancellation of his bail bonds and issuance of
    arrest warrants if he failed to appear. Lavides filed a motion to quash the charges and suspend
    his arraignment, but the court denied the motion, leading to his arraignment and plea of not
    guilty. He was released upon posting bail bonds amounting to P800,000.00, subject to the
    conditions set by the court.
    ➢ The petitioner challenged the lower court's denial of his motion to quash and the conditions set
    forth. The CA deemed conditions (a) and (b) invalid but did not address the validity of condition
    (d) as it deemed the issue moot since Lavides had already been arraigned. Lavides subsequently
    filed a petition in the Supreme Court (SC), arguing that the CA erred in not declaring condition
    (d) as void and claiming that his arraignment should also be considered void due to the invalid
    condition.

    ISSUE:

    ➢ W.O.N. arraignment is a prerequisite for bail bond approval in cases where bail is authorized.

    HELD:

    ➢ NO. The trial court was in error when the latter required the arraignment of the accused as a
    prerequisite to the approval of the bail bond. 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 arraignment1.
    ➢ Art. III, §14(2) of the Constitution authorizing trials in absentia allows the accused to be absent
    at the trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit: (a) at arraignment and plea,
    whether of innocence or of guilt, (b) during trial whenever necessary for identification
    purposes,10 and (c) at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in which case
    the accused may appear by counsel or representative. At such stages of the proceedings, his
    presence is required and cannot be waived. As pointed out in Borja v. Mendoza, in an opinion
    by Justice, later Chief Justice, Enrique Fernando, there can be no trial in absentia unless the
    accused has been arraigned2.
    ➢ Undoubtedly, the trial court knew this. Petitioner could delay the proceedings by absenting
    himself from the arraignment. But once he is arraigned, trial could proceed even in his absence.
    So it thought that to ensure petitioner’s presence at the arraignment, petitioner should be
    denied bail in the meantime. The fly in the ointment, however, is that such court strategy violates
    petitioner’s constitutional rights3.

    1
    Lavides vs. Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 321, G.R. No. 129670 February 1, 2000
    2
    Ibid., p. 331
    3
    Id.

    You might also like