Case Digest: Gacal vs. Infante, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1845, October 5, 2011
Rule 114: Bail | Criminal Procedure
Facts:
Manolet Lavides was arrested without a warrant based on reports of his activities involving a minor. He was charged with a violation of RA 7610 (child abuse). Lavides filed a motion claiming that his warrantless arrest was illegal and requested to be allowed to post bail as a matter of right.
The trial court granted Lavides' motion and allowed him to post bail under certain conditions, including mandatory appearance during trial and the forfeiture of bail if he fails to appear. Lavides then filed a motion to quash the charges and requested the suspension of his arraignment, but the court denied these motions. He was subsequently arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the charges, and the court ordered his release upon posting bail bonds totaling P800,000.00, subject to the conditions set forth in the court's order.
Lavides filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to quash and the conditions imposed on his bail. The Court of Appeals declared two of the conditions invalid but did not rule on the validity of another condition, stating that it had become moot and academic since Lavides had already been arraigned. Lavides then filed a petition with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in not declaring the condition as void and claiming that his arraignment should be considered void as well due to the invalid condition.
Issue:
WON accused must be first arraigned before he may be granted bail.
Held: NO.
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. Under Rule 114, §2(b) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, one of the conditions of bail is that "the accused shall appear before the proper court whenever so required by the court or these Rules," while under Rule 116, §1(b) the presence of the accused at the arraignment is required.
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.