Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Crim Pro #2 Bail

    Uploaded by

    Jan Kenrick Sagum
    The document discusses a case where a man was arrested without a warrant for child abuse charges. He filed motions challenging the legality of the arrest and seeking bail. The trial court granted bail but with conditions, including that bail would only be approved after arraignment. The man appealed, arguing this condition was invalid. The Court of Appeals agreed some conditions were invalid but did not rule on this one. The Supreme Court then ruled that the condition requiring arraignment before bail was approved was void, as it undermined the accused's rights.

    Copyright:

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

    Crim Pro #2 Bail

    Uploaded by

    Jan Kenrick Sagum
    9 views1 page
    The document discusses a case where a man was arrested without a warrant for child abuse charges. He filed motions challenging the legality of the arrest and seeking bail. The trial court granted bail but with conditions, including that bail would only be approved after arraignment. The man appealed, arguing this condition was invalid. The Court of Appeals agreed some conditions were invalid but did not rule on this one. The Supreme Court then ruled that the condition requiring arraignment before bail was approved was void, as it undermined the accused's rights.

    Original Title

    CRIM PRO #2 BAIL

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case where a man was arrested without a warrant for child abuse charges. He filed motions challenging the legality of the arrest and seeking bail. The trial court granted bail but with conditions, including that bail would only be approved after arraignment. The man appealed, arguing this condition was invalid. The Court of Appeals agreed some conditions were invalid but did not rule on this one. The Supreme Court then ruled that the condition requiring arraignment before bail was approved was void, as it undermined the accused's rights.

    Copyright:

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

    Crim Pro #2 Bail

    Uploaded by

    Jan Kenrick Sagum
    The document discusses a case where a man was arrested without a warrant for child abuse charges. He filed motions challenging the legality of the arrest and seeking bail. The trial court granted bail but with conditions, including that bail would only be approved after arraignment. The man appealed, arguing this condition was invalid. The Court of Appeals agreed some conditions were invalid but did not rule on this one. The Supreme Court then ruled that the condition requiring arraignment before bail was approved was void, as it undermined the accused's rights.

    Copyright:

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

    2. G.R. No.

    129670 February 1, 2000


    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

    FACTS:
    Manolet Lavides was arrested without a warrant as a result of an entrapment conducted
    by the police. It appears that the parents of complainant Lorelie San Miguel reported to
    the police that their daughter, then 16years old, had been contacted by Lavides for an
    assignation that night at his room at the Metropolitan Hotel in Diliman, Quezon City.
    Apparently, this was not the first time the police received reports of petitioner’s activities.
    He was charged with violation of RA 7610. Lavides filed a Motion, contending that the
    warrantless arrest made was illegal and that he should be allowed to post bail as a
    matter of right. Later, nine more Informations for child abuse were filed against Lavides.
    No bail was recommended but he still filed separate applications for bail in the nine
    cases.
    The trial court issued an order resolving the Motion of Lavides, ruling that he is allowed
    to post bail, under the conditions that: a) The accused shall not be entitled to a waiver of
    appearance during the trial of these cases; b) 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; c) The hold-
    departure Order of this Court dated April 10, 1997 stands; and d) Approval of the bail
    bonds shall be made only after the arraignment to enable this Court to immediately
    acquire jurisdiction over the accused. He thereafter filed a motion to quash the
    Informations against him and to suspend his arraignment. The court however denied
    said motion so he was arraigned during which he pleaded not guilty to the charges
    against him. The court then ordered him released upon posting bail bonds in the total
    amount of P800,000.00, subject to the conditions in the Order.
    He filed a petition for certiorari in the CA, assailing the trial court’s denial of his motion to
    quash and the conditions set forth in its order. The CA declared conditions (a) and (b)
    invalid but declined to pass upon the validity of condition (d) on the ground that the
    issue had become moot and academic since Lavides has already been arraigned. He
    then filed this present petition in the SC, contending that the CA erred in not declaring
    condition (d) as a void condition and that his arraignment should be also considered
    void because it was held pursuant to a invalid condition.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the condition is void and the arraignment is invalid.

    RULING:
    The condition is void. 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. 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.

    You might also like