FACTS:

Petitioner Manolet Lavides was arrested without a warrant on April 3, 1997 for child abuse under R.A. No. 7610. The arrest was a result of an entrapment operation conducted by the police based on reports received about petitioner's activities. On said date, the parents of complainant Lorelie San Miguel reported to the police that petitioner had contacted their daughter for an assignation at petitioner's room at the Metropolitan Hotel in Diliman, Quezon City. When the police knocked on the door of Room 308, they saw petitioner with Lorelie, who was only wearing a t-shirt and underwear. Petitioner was then arrested, and an information for violation of R.A. No. 7610 was filed against him. Later on, nine more informations for child abuse were filed against petitioner by other complainants. Petitioner filed various motions, including one for the release of the accused unlawfully detained on an unlawful warrantless arrest, applications for bail, and a motion to quash the informations. The trial court granted bail to petitioner but imposed certain conditions. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, challenging the conditions imposed and the denial of his motion to quash. The Court of Appeals invalidated some of the conditions but declared the issue concerning the approval of petitioner's bail bonds moot and academic. Petitioner subsequently filed this petition, raising several contentions with the Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the condition imposed by the trial court on the grant of bail, which requires the accused's arraignment as a prerequisite for the approval of his bail bonds, is valid.

2. Whether the arraignment of the accused is invalid due to the invalid condition imposed by the trial court.

3. Whether the condition for the grant of bail to the petitioner is invalid.

4. Whether petitioner should be charged under several informations corresponding to the number of acts of child abuse allegedly committed by him against each of the complainants.

5. Whether or not the trial court's order requiring arraignment as a prerequisite to the grant of bail is valid.

6. Whether or not the second paragraph of the order violates the constitutional right to bail.

RULING:

1. The condition imposed by the trial court, which requires the accused's arraignment as a prerequisite for the approval of his bail bonds, is invalid.

2. The arraignment of the accused is not invalid despite the invalid condition imposed by the trial court.

3. The condition for the grant of bail to the petitioner is invalid. However, the petitioner's arraignment and the subsequent proceedings against him are valid.

4. Each incident of sexual intercourse and lascivious act with a child under the circumstances mentioned in Art. III, §5 of R.A. No. 7160 is a separate and distinct offense. Therefore, petitioner should be charged under separate informations for each act of child abuse.

5. The second paragraph of the order of May 16, 1997, which makes arraignment a prerequisite to the grant of bail, is declared void.

PRINCIPLES:

• Bail should be granted before arraignment to allow the accused to file a motion to quash if necessary.

• The trial court can ensure the presence of the accused at the arraignment by granting bail and ordering his presence at any stage of the proceedings.

• The condition that the accused cannot waive his appearance at the trial and must be present at the hearings of the case is valid.

• The accused has a 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.

• The accused's presence is required at arraignment and plea, during trial whenever necessary for identification purposes, and at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light offense.

• There can be no trial in absentia unless the accused has been arraigned.

• The arraignment of the accused cannot be omitted even if the condition for the grant of bail is invalid.

• The remedy of an accused whose motion to quash is denied is not to file a petition for certiorari, but to proceed to trial without prejudice to his right to reiterate the grounds invoked in his motion to quash during trial on the merits or on appeal if an adverse judgment is rendered against him.

• Certiorari may be resorted to as an exception to raise an issue decided against the accused if there are special circumstances clearly demonstrating the inadequacy of an appeal.

• Each act of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse constitutes a separate and distinct offense.

• The constitutional right to bail should not be unreasonably denied or restricted.

• The court may set reasonable conditions on the grant of bail to ensure the appearance of the accused at trial.

• The requirement of arraignment before bail is granted may be valid in certain circumstances, but it cannot be an absolute condition.

• The determination of bail should be based on the guidelines set forth in Section 13, Article III of the Constitution and relevant provisions of the Revised Rules of Court.