Raphael Descartes M.

Roldan University of San Agustin

JD 1-C College of Law

Case Name Manolet O. Lavides vs. Honorable Court of Appeals; Hon. Rosalina
L. Luna Pison, Judge Presiding over Branch 107, RTC Quezon
City; and People of the Philippines
Topic Child Abuse and Prostitution
Case No.| Date G.R. NO. 129670 | February 1, 2000
Ponente Mendoza, J.
Doctrine If bail is allowed by the court, this should be made before the
arraignment of the accused, in order for the court to guarantee the
attendance of the accused to the proceedings of which are required by
the court, and to guarantee that the constitutional rights of the accused
would not be demeaned in the manner of which would limit him to
decide by compulsion of remedies that would not serve his interests.

For every instance that an offender commit sexual acts in violation of

RA 6710, the charge against the person is for such each act committed,
since each act is treated as a separate and distinct offence.
Facts On April 3, 1997 at 8:20 in the evening, Manolet O. Lavides, petitioner,
was arrested under an entrapment operation due to the violation of R.A
7610. When the petitioner was arrested, policemen saw Lorelie San
Miguel who at that time was a minor together with the petitioner, only
wearing a shirt and her underwear at Room 308 of the Metropolitan
Hotel.

The petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion on April 10, 1997 for: Judicial
Determination of Probable Cause, Immediate Release since he was
unlawfully detained under an unlawful warrantless arrest; and if the
resolution does not come into the favor of the petitioner, he would be
allowed to post bail as a right under the law of which he was charged.

After a few days, on April 29, 1997, there were nine similar cases of
which were filed against the petitioner.

The Trial Court on May 16, 1997 issued a resolution to resolve the
Omnibus Motion filed by the petitioner. The dispositive portion of the
resolution stipulates that the criminal case filed against the petitioner
docketed as Crim. Case No. Q-97-70550 has probable cause for the
court to detain the petitioner. Further, the court resolves to allow the
petitioner to post bail under several conditions.

Special Penal Laws | 1

Raphael Descartes M. Roldan University of San Agustin
JD 1-C College of Law
The court on May 23, 1997 denied the petitioner’s motion to quash the
information against the petitioner, and lower the amount from Php 80,
000.00 to Php 40, 000.00 of which was filed on May 20, 1997.

The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court

contending that the Court of Appeals erred in: approving the bail bonds
of the petitioner despite the fact that the bonds stipulated in the
conditions should be made after the petitioner’s arraignment, failure to
resolve the submission that the arraignment was void since it came from
a void order, denying the petitioner’s motion to quash the information
against him, failure to resolve the legal issue whether the petitioner may
be charged for violation of R.A 6710.
Issue (s) 1. Whether the trial court erred in ruling that the bail bonds should be
made after the arraignment despite the fact that the petitioner already
posted bail bonds and pleaded that he was not guilty to all the offenses
being alleged of him;

2. Whether the court failed to resolve the submission of which the

arraignment was void, since it comes from a void order;

3. Whether the court erred in denying the petition to quash the

information against the petitioner, since may not be contested in a
petition for certiorari; and

4.Whether the court erred in not resolving the issue should the petitioner
may be validly be charged for violation of R.A 7610 for each act that
was done by him with the victims.
Ruling(s) The court held that:

1. It agrees with the petitioner that the bail should have had been made
before arraignment, since if this were done otherwise, the petitioner
would be precluded from filing a motion to quash. The trial court could
further guarantee the attendance of the accused to his arraignment for
the fact that the court ordered the accused to post bail. Moreover, the
court in setting conditions to grant the bail on his arraignment would
either compel the accused to file a motion to quash the information that
would delay his release since he could only be released on bail after the
motion to quash is resolved, or not to file a motion to quash at all of
which would lead to his arraignment and that thereafter he would be
granted release on bail. This in effect, demeans the constitutional right

Special Penal Laws | 2

Raphael Descartes M. Roldan University of San Agustin
JD 1-C College of Law
of the accused.

2. The arraignment and the subsequent proceedings against the petitioner

is valid even if the grant of bail to the petitioner is invalid.

3. The petitioner conceded that the action after his motion to quash was
denied was not to file for certiorari, but rather to proceed to trial without
prejudice to the reiteration of his motion to quash the information
against him.

4. The petitioner is charged for every sexual intercourse he had with the
victims, since they are separate and distinct offenses against R.A 7610

Special Penal Laws | 3