Lavides vs.
The Court of Appeals et al traversing the Regional Trial Court and the Court of
Appeals. His legal journey raised substantial
An Examination of Multiple Charges for Child Abuse
questions on the conditions of his bail and the
Under R.A. 7610
multiple charges filed against him based on
The principal doctrine established in this case is that supposedly connected or singular incidents of abuse.
under R.A. 7610, each act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a child, exploited in
prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse, constitutes Issues:
a separate and distinct offense. Therefore, multiple 1. Whether the conditions imposed by the trial court
charges for such acts are both valid and necessary to for Lavides’ bail, particularly requiring arraignment as
appropriately address each incident’s legality and a prerequisite, were valid.
impact on the victims. 2. Whether the arraignment of Lavides was valid
despite the alleged invalid condition tied to his bail.
• Conditions of Bail: The conditions set for an
3. If the denial of Lavides’ motion to quash the
accused’s bail must not undermine their
informations against him can be contested through a
procedural or constitutional rights, such as the
petition for certiorari.
right to file a motion to quash or the right to bail
4. Whether Lavides could be charged under several
before arraignment.
informations corresponding to the number of alleged
acts of child abuse committed against each minor.
• Trials in Absentia: An accused can be tried in
absentia only after they have been arraigned, and Held:
their subsequent absence is unjustifiable despite
proper notice.
1. The Supreme Court concurred with Lavides on the
invalidity of conditioning bail approval upon his
Facts: arraignment, stating this undermines the accused’s
constitutional rights without necessarily serving
justice efficiency or the complainants’ interests.
The case revolves around Manolet O. Lavides, who
2. Despite the invalid condition attached to Lavides’
was arrested without a warrant on April 3, 1997,
bail, the Court upheld the validity of his arraignment,
following an entrapment operation due to allegations
arguing the arraignment is an essential procedural
of child abuse under R.A. No. 7610. The operation was
step independent of bail conditions.
conducted after the parents of 16-year-old Lorelie San
3. The Court recognized that generally the denial of a
Miguel reported to the police that Lavides had
motion to quash should be addressed in trial, not via
arranged a meeting with their daughter at a hotel in
certiorari, but noted exceptions exist, especially in
Quezon City. Upon his arrest, further investigations
cases posing broad legal questions that might affect
led to the filing of more informations based on the
the trial’s fundamental fairness or the procedural
accusations of Lorelie San Miguel and three other
rights of the accused.
minors, each alleging instances of sexual intercourse
4. On the matter of multiple charges, the Court
for which they received payment, thus framing a
clarified each act of sexual abuse under R.A. 7610
scenario of exploitation.
constitutes a separate offense, rebutting Lavides’
Lavides contested these charges through several argument for singular or reduced charges based on an
back-and-forth legal maneuvers including a motion “unbroken chain of events.”
for judicial determination of probable cause, an
omnibus motion challenging his warrantless arrest,
and applications for bail which all led through
procedural sequences up to the Supreme Court after
same on the back of the document.
The petitioner forthwith moved for the dismissal
Almeda vs. Villaluz of the charge on the ground of double jeopardy,
but this motion and a motion for reconsideration
were denied in open court. Almeda vs. Villaluz
FACTS:
Petitioner Leonardo Almeda (alias Nardong Paa)
ISSUE:
was charged, together with five others, with the
crime of qualified theft of a motor vehicle.
Whether or not the respondent judge has the
The amount of the bond recommended for the
authority to require a strict cash bond and
provisional release of Almeda was P15,000, and
disallow the petitioner's attempt to post a surety
this was approved by the respondent judge with a
bond for his provisional liberty.
direction that it be posted entirely in cash.
Almeda vs. Villaluz
HELD:
Almeda asked the trial court to allow him to post
a surety bond in lieu of the cash bond required of
him. As defined in Section 1 of Rule 114 of the Rules of
Court, bail is the security required and given for
This request was denied, and so was an oral the release of a person who is in the custody of
motion for reconsideration, on the ground that the law, that he will appear before any court in
the amended information imputed habitual which his appearance may be required as
delinquency and recidivism on the part of Almeda. stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance.
Almeda vs. Villaluz
The purpose of requiring bail is to relieve an
accused from imprisonment until his conviction
and yet secure his appearance at the trial.
At the same hearing, the respondent city fiscal,
thru his assistant, reiterated his oral motion In this jurisdiction, the accused, as of right, is
made at a previous hearing for amendment of the entitled to bail prior to conviction except when he
information so as to include allegations of is charged with a capital offense and the evidence
recidivism and habitual delinquency in the of guilt is strong.
particular case of Almeda.
This right is guaranteed by the Constitution, and
The trial court granted the respondent fiscal's may not be denied even where the accused has
motion in open court. Almeda vs. Villaluz previously escaped detention, or by reason of his
An oral motion for reconsideration was denied. prior absconding.
Immediately thereafter, the assistant fiscal took
In order to safeguard the right of an accused to
hold of the original information and, then and
there, entered his amendment by annotating the
bail, the Constitution further provides that: with the nearest collector of internal revenue, or
EXCESSIVE BAIL SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED. provincial, city, or municipal treasurer the sum
mentioned in the order, and upon delivering to
This is logical because the imposition of an
the court a proper certificate of the deposit, must
unreasonable bail may negate the very right itself.
be discharged from custody. Money thus
deposited, shall be applied to the payment of the
We have thus held that where conditions
fine and costs for which judgment may be given;
imposed upon a defendant seeking bail would
and the surplus, if any, shall be returned to the
amount to a refusal thereof and render nugatory
defendant.
the constitutional right to bail, we would not
hesitate to exercise our supervisory powers to
provide the required remedy.
Thus, the trial court may not reject otherwise
The condition that the accused may have acceptable sureties and insist that the accused
provisional liberty only upon his posting of a cash obtain his provisional liberty only thru a cash
bond is abhorrent to the nature of bail and bond. But while we repudiate the particular
transgresses our law on the matter. measure adopted by the respondent judge, we
cannot fault the motive that caused him to demur
to the petitioner's offer of a surety bond.
The sole purpose of bail is to insure the
attendance of the accused when required by the
Based on the petitioner's past record. Fortunately,
court, and there should be no suggestion of
the court is not without devices with which to
penalty on the part of the accused nor revenue on
meet the situation.
the part of the government.
The allowance of a cash bond in lieu of sureties is 1. First, it could increase the amount of the bail
authorized in this jurisdiction only because our bond to an appropriate level.
rules expressly provide for it. Almeda vs. Villaluz 2. Second, as part of the power of the court over
Were this not the case, the posting of bail by the person of the accused and for the purpose
depositing cash with the court cannot be of discouraging likely commission of other
countenanced because, strictly speaking, the crimes by a notorious defendant while on
very nature of bail presupposes the attendance of provisional liberty, the latter could be
sureties to whom the body of the prisoner can be required, as one of the conditions of his bail
delivered. bond, to report in person periodically to the
court and make an accounting of his
And even where cash bail is allowed, the option movements.
to deposit cash in lieu of a surety bond primarily 3. Third, the accused might be warned, though
belongs to the accused. This is clearly deducible this warning is not essential to the
from the language of section 14 of Rule 114 of the requirements of due process, that under the
Rules of Court: 1973 Constitution.
SEC. 14. Deposit of money as bail. — At any time
"Trial may proceed notwithstanding his
after the amount of bail is fixed by order, the
absence provided that he has been duly
defendant, instead of giving bail, may deposit
notified and his failure to appear is In an application for bail pending appeal by an
unjustified." appellant sentenced by the trial court to a penalty
of imprisonment for more than six years, does the
discretionary nature of the grant of bail pending
Leviste v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 189122, 17 appeal mean that bail should automatically be
March 2010. granted absent any of the circumstances
mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5,
Rule 114 of the Rules of Court?
FACTS:
HELD:
Charged with the murder of Rafael de las Alas,
NO, discretionary nature of bail mentioned in
petitioner Jose Antonio Leviste was convicted by
Section 5 of Rule 114 does not mean automatic
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City for the
grant of bail in case of appeal.
lesser crime of homicide and sentenced to suffer
an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day After conviction by the trial court, the
of prision mayor as minimum to 12 years and one presumption of innocence terminates and,
day of reclusion temporal as maximum. He accordingly, the constitutional right to bail ends.
appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals. From then on, the grant of bail is subject to
Pending appeal, he filed an urgent application for judicial discretion. At the risk of being repetitious,
admission to bail pending appeal, citing his such discretion must be exercised with grave
advanced age and health condition, and claiming caution and only for strong reasons. Considering
the absence of any risk or possibility of flight on that the accused was in fact convicted by the trial
his part. court, allowance of bail pending appeal should
be guided by a stringent-standards approach.
The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s
This judicial disposition finds strong support in
application for bail. It invoked the bedrock
the history and evolution of the rules on bail and
principle in the matter of bail pending appeal,
the language of Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules
that the discretion to extend bail during the
of Court.
course of appeal should be exercised “with grave
caution and only for strong reasons.” Petitioner It is likewise consistent with the trial court’s initial
now questions as grave abuse of discretion the determination that the accused should be in
denial of his application for bail, considering that prison. Furthermore, letting the accused out on
none of the conditions justifying denial of bail bail despite his conviction may destroy the
under the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 deterrent effect of our criminal laws. This is
of the Rules of Court was present. especially germane to bail pending appeal
because long delays often separate sentencing in
Petitioner’s theory is that, where the penalty
the trial court and appellate review. In addition, at
imposed by the trial court is more than six years
the post-conviction stage, the accused faces a
but not more than 20 years and the
certain prison sentence and thus may be more
circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph
likely to flee regardless of bail bonds or other
of Section 5 are absent, bail must be granted to
release conditions. Finally, permitting bail too
an appellant pending appeal.
freely in spite of conviction invites frivolous and
ISSUE: time-wasting appeals which will make a mockery
of our criminal justice system and court travel are not absolute but can be regulated by
processes. law. The CA's requirement for a certification did
not impair his rights; it was a lawful condition to
ensure his availability for court proceedings. Yap
Francisco Yap, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals was still free to change his residence as long as
he notified the court.
Facts:
Francisco Yap was convicted of estafa for
misappropriating P5.5 million. After his case was
sent to the Court of Appeals, he filed a motion to
fix bail pending appeal. The CA allowed bail but
set it at P5.5 million, requiring him to secure a
certification from the Mayor confirming his
residency and stating he must notify the court of
any change in residence. Yap sought a reduction
of the bail amount, but this was denied. He then
appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the
high bail effectively denied him his right to bail
and that the certification requirement violated his
liberty of abode and travel.
Issues:
1. Was the P5,500,000.00 bail amount excessive
and a violation of Yap's right against excessive
bail?
2. Did the condition imposed by the CA violate
Yap's liberty of abode and right to travel?
Held:
Right to Bail: The Supreme Court partially granted
petition, reducing 5.5 million to 200,000.
The Supreme Court found the bail amount of P5.5
million to be unreasonable and excessive,
effectively denying Yap his right to bail. The
purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's
appearance in court, and it should not serve as a
punishment or equate to the civil liability charged
against the accused.
Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel: The Court
held that Yap’s rights to change residence and
