SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 129670, February 01, 2000 ]MANOLET O. LAVIDES v. CA +
MANOLET O. LAVIDES, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS; HON. ROSALINA L. LUNA PISON, JUDGE PRESIDING OVER BRANCH 107, RTC, QUEZON CITY; AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
MANOLET O. LAVIDES v. CA +
MANOLET O. LAVIDES, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS; HON. ROSALINA L. LUNA PISON, JUDGE PRESIDING OVER BRANCH 107, RTC, QUEZON CITY; AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
Petitioner Manolet Lavides was arrested on April 3, 1997 for child abuse under R.A. No. 7610 (an act providing for stronger deterrence and special protection against child abuse, exploitation and discrimination, providing penalties for its violation, and
other purposes). His arrest was made without a warrant as a result of an entrapment conducted by the police. It appears that on April 3, 1997, the parents of complainant Lorelie San Miguel reported to the police that their daughter, then 16 years old, had been contacted by
petitioner for an assignation that night at petitioner's room at the Metropolitan Hotel in Diliman, Quezon City. Apparently, this was not the first time the police received reports of petitioner's activities. An entrapment operation was therefore set in motion. At around 8:20 in
the evening of April 3, 1997, the police knocked at the door of Room 308 of the Metropolitan Hotel where petitioner was staying. When petitioner opened the door, the police saw him with Lorelie, who was wearing only a t-shirt and an underwear, whereupon they arrested him. Based
on the sworn statement of complainant and the affidavits of the arresting officers, which were submitted at the inquest, an information for violation of Art. III, §5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 was filed on April 7, 1997 against petitioner in the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, where
it was docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-97-70550.
On April 10, 1997, petitioner filed an "Omnibus Motion (1) For Judicial Determination of Probable Cause; (2) For the Immediate Release of the Accused Unlawfully Detained on an Unlawful Warrantless Arrest; and (3) In the Event of Adverse Resolution of the Above Incident, Herein Accused be Allowed to Bail as a Matter of Right under the Law on Which He is Charged."[1]
On April 29, 1997, nine more informations for child abuse were filed against petitioner by the same complainant, Lorelie San Miguel, and by three other minor children, Mary Ann Tardesilla, Jennifer Catarman, and Annalyn Talingting. The cases were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. Q-97-70866 to Q-97-70874. In all the cases, it was alleged that, on various dates mentioned in the informations, petitioner had sexual intercourse with complainants who had been "exploited in prostitution and . . . given money [by petitioner] as payment for the said [acts of] sexual intercourse."
No bail was recommended. Nonetheless, petitioner filed separate applications for bail in the nine cases.
On May 16, 1997, the trial court issued an order resolving petitioner's Omnibus Motion, as follows:
On May 23, 1997, the trial court, in separate orders, denied petitioner's motions to reduce bail bonds, to quash the informations, and to suspend arraignment. Accordingly, petitioner was arraigned during which he pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and then ordered him released upon posting bail bonds in the total amount of P800,000.00, subject to the conditions in the May 16, 1997 order and the "hold-departure" order of April 10, 1997. The pre-trial conference was set on June 7, 1997.
On June 2, 1997, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 44316) in the Court of Appeals, assailing the trial court's order, dated May 16, 1997, and its two orders, dated May 23, 1997, denying his motion to quash and maintaining the conditions set forth in its order of May 16, 1997, respectively.
While the case was pending in the Court of Appeals, two more informations were filed against petitioner, bringing the total number of cases against him to 12, which were all consolidated.
On June 30, 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
With respect to the denial of petitioner's motion to quash the informations against him, the appellate court held that petitioner could not question the same in a petition for certiorari before it, but what he must do was to go to trial and to reiterate the grounds of his motion to quash on appeal should the decision be adverse to him.
Hence this petition. Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred[7] __
First. As already stated, the trial court's order, dated May 16, 1997, imposed four conditions for the grant of bail to petitioner:
We agree with petitioner that the appellate court should have determined the validity of the conditions imposed in the trial court's order of May 16, 1997 for the grant of bail because petitioner's contention is that his arraignment was held in pursuance of these conditions for bail.
In requiring that petitioner be first arraigned before he could be granted bail, the trial court apprehended that if petitioner were released on bail he could, by being absent, prevent his early arraignment and thereby delay his trial until the complainants got tired and lost interest in their cases. Hence, to ensure his presence at the arraignment, approval of petitioner's bail bonds should be deferred until he could be arraigned. After that, even if petitioner does not appear, trial can proceed as long as he is notified of the date of hearing and his failure to appear is unjustified, since under Art. III, §14(2) of the Constitution, trial in absentia is authorized. This seems to be the theory of the trial court in its May 16, 1997 order conditioning the grant of bail to petitioner on his arraignment.
This theory is mistaken. In the first place, as the trial court itself acknowledged, in cases where it is authorized, 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.[8]
It is the condition in the May 16, 1997 order of the trial court that "approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after arraignment," which the Court of Appeals should instead have declared void. The condition imposed in the trial court's order of May 16, 1997 that the accused cannot waive his appearance at the trial but that he must be present at the hearings of the case is valid and is in accordance with Rule 114. For another condition of bail under Rule 114, §2(c) is that "The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification despite due notice to him or his bondsman shall be deemed an express waiver of his right to be present on the date specified in the notice. In such case, trial shall proceed in absentia."
Art. III, §14(2) of the Constitution authorizing trials in absentia allows the accused to be absent at the trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit: (a) at arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilt,[9] (b) during trial whenever necessary for identification purposes,[10] and (c) at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in which case the accused may appear by counsel or representative.[11] At such stages of the proceedings, his presence is required and cannot be waived. As pointed out in Borja v. Mendoza,[12] in an opinion by Justice, later Chief Justice, Enrique Fernando, there can be no trial in absentia unless the accused has been arraigned.
Undoubtedly, the trial court knew this. Petitioner could delay the proceedings by absenting himself from the arraignment. But once he is arraigned, trial could proceed even in his absence. So it thought that to ensure petitioner's presence at the arraignment, petitioner should be denied bail in the meantime. The fly in the ointment, however, is that such court strategy violates petitioner's constitutional rights.
Second. Although this condition is invalid, it does not follow that the arraignment of petitioner on May 23, 1997 was also invalid. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the arraignment did not emanate from the invalid condition that "approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after the arraignment." Even without such a condition, the arraignment of petitioner could not be omitted. In sum, although the condition for the grant of bail to petitioner is invalid, his arraignment and the subsequent proceedings against him are valid.
Third. Petitioner concedes that the rule is that 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. However, he argues that this case should be treated as an exception. He contends that the Court of Appeals should not have evaded the issue of whether he should be charged under several informations corresponding to the number of acts of child abuse allegedly committed by him against each of the complainants.
In Tano v. Salvador,[13] the Court, while holding that certiorari will not lie from a denial of a motion to quash, nevertheless recognized that there may be cases where there are special circumstances clearly demonstrating the inadequacy of an appeal. In such cases, the accused may resort to the appellate court to raise the issue decided against him. This is such a case. Whether petitioner is liable for just one crime regardless of the number of sexual acts allegedly committed by him and the number of children with whom he had sexual intercourse, or whether each act of intercourse constitutes one crime is a question that bears on the presentation of evidence by either party. It is important to petitioner as well as to the prosecution how many crimes there are. For instance, if there is only one offense of sexual abuse regardless of the number of children involved, it will not matter much to the prosecution whether it is able to present only one of the complainants. On the other hand, if each act of sexual intercourse with a child constitutes a separate offense, it will matter whether the other children are presented during the trial.
The issue then should have been decided by the Court of Appeals. However, instead of remanding this case to the appellate court for a determination of this issue, we will decide the issue now so that the trial in the court below can proceed without further delay.
Petitioner's contention is that the 12 informations filed against him allege only one offense of child abuse, regardless of the number of alleged victims (four) and the number of acts of sexual intercourse committed with them (twelve). He argues that the act of sexual intercourse is only a means of committing the offense so that the acts of sexual intercourse/lasciviousness with minors attributed to him should not be subject of separate informations. He cites the affidavits of the alleged victims which show that their involvement with him constitutes an "unbroken chain of events," i.e., the first victim was the one who introduced the second to petitioner and so on. Petitioner says that child abuse is similar to the crime of large-scale illegal recruitment where there is only a single offense regardless of the number of workers illegally recruited on different occasions. In the alternative, he contends that, at the most, only four informations, corresponding to the number of alleged child victims, can be filed against him.
Art. III, §5 of R.A. No. 7160 under which petitioner is being prosecuted, provides:
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 thus a separate and distinct offense. The offense is similar to rape or act of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code in which each act of rape or lascivious conduct should be the subject of a separate information. This conclusion is confirmed by Art. III, §5(b) of R.A. No. 7160, which provides:
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Petition, Appendix F; Rollo, pp. 78-85.
[2] Id., Appendix B, pp. 18-19; id., pp. 65-66.
[3] Id., Appendix J; id., pp. 115-122.
[4] Id., Appendix I; id., pp. 111-114.
[5] The conditions declared void were the following:
[7] Id., p. 14; id., p. 16.
[8] Under Art. III, §5 of R.A. No. 7610, the offenses with which petitioner is charged are punishable by reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.
[9] Rule 116, §1(b)
[10] People v. Avanceña, G.R. No. 37005, Oct. 13, 1933, 32 O.G. 713 (1934); Aquino v. Military Commission No. 2, 63 SCRA 546 (1975); People v. Salas, 143 SCRA 163 (1986)
[11] Rule 120, §6.
[12] 77 SCRA 422 (1977)
[13] 278 SCRA 154 (1997)
[14] Under R.A. No. 7160, Art. I, §3(a):
On April 10, 1997, petitioner filed an "Omnibus Motion (1) For Judicial Determination of Probable Cause; (2) For the Immediate Release of the Accused Unlawfully Detained on an Unlawful Warrantless Arrest; and (3) In the Event of Adverse Resolution of the Above Incident, Herein Accused be Allowed to Bail as a Matter of Right under the Law on Which He is Charged."[1]
On April 29, 1997, nine more informations for child abuse were filed against petitioner by the same complainant, Lorelie San Miguel, and by three other minor children, Mary Ann Tardesilla, Jennifer Catarman, and Annalyn Talingting. The cases were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. Q-97-70866 to Q-97-70874. In all the cases, it was alleged that, on various dates mentioned in the informations, petitioner had sexual intercourse with complainants who had been "exploited in prostitution and . . . given money [by petitioner] as payment for the said [acts of] sexual intercourse."
No bail was recommended. Nonetheless, petitioner filed separate applications for bail in the nine cases.
On May 16, 1997, the trial court issued an order resolving petitioner's Omnibus Motion, as follows:
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Court finds that:
- In Crim. Case No. Q-97-70550, there is probable cause to hold the accused under detention, his arrest having been made in accordance with the Rules. He must therefore remain under detention until further order of this Court;
- The accused is entitled to bail in all the above-entitled case. He is hereby granted the right to post bail in the amount of P80,000.00 for each case or a total of P800,000.00 for all the cases under the following conditions:
a)
b)
c)
d)
On May 20, 1997, petitioner filed a motion to quash the informations against him, except those filed in Criminal Case No. Q-97-70550 or Q-97-70866. Pending resolution of his motion, he asked the trial court to suspend the arraignment scheduled on May 23, 1997.[3] Then on May 22, 1997, he filed a motion in which he prayed that the amounts of bail bonds be reduced to P40,000.00 for each case and that the same be done prior to his arraignment.[4]
- Let these cases be set for arraignment on May 23, 1997 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning.[2]
On May 23, 1997, the trial court, in separate orders, denied petitioner's motions to reduce bail bonds, to quash the informations, and to suspend arraignment. Accordingly, petitioner was arraigned during which he pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and then ordered him released upon posting bail bonds in the total amount of P800,000.00, subject to the conditions in the May 16, 1997 order and the "hold-departure" order of April 10, 1997. The pre-trial conference was set on June 7, 1997.
On June 2, 1997, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 44316) in the Court of Appeals, assailing the trial court's order, dated May 16, 1997, and its two orders, dated May 23, 1997, denying his motion to quash and maintaining the conditions set forth in its order of May 16, 1997, respectively.
While the case was pending in the Court of Appeals, two more informations were filed against petitioner, bringing the total number of cases against him to 12, which were all consolidated.
On June 30, 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, considering that the conditions imposed under Nos. 2-a) and 2-b),[5] of the May 23 (should be May 16), 1997 Order, are separable, and would not affect the cash bond which petitioner posted for his provisional liberty, with the sole modification that those aforesaid conditions are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE, the May 16, May 23 and May 23, 1997 Orders are MAINTAINED in all other respects.[6]The appellate court invalidated the first two conditions imposed in the May 16, 1997 order for the grant of bail to petitioner but ruled that the issue concerning the validity of the condition making arraignment a prerequisite for the approval of petitioner's bail bonds to be moot and academic. It noted "that petitioner has posted the cash bonds; that when arraigned, represented by lawyers, he pleaded not guilty to each offense; and that he has already been released from detention." The Court of Appeals thought that the aforesaid conditions in the May 16, 1997 order were contrary to Art. III, §14(2) of the Constitution which provides that "[a]fter arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable."
With respect to the denial of petitioner's motion to quash the informations against him, the appellate court held that petitioner could not question the same in a petition for certiorari before it, but what he must do was to go to trial and to reiterate the grounds of his motion to quash on appeal should the decision be adverse to him.
Hence this petition. Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred[7] __
We will deal with each of these contentions although not in the order in which they are stated by petitioner.
- In ruling that the condition imposed by respondent Judge that the approval of petitioner's bail bonds "shall be made only after his arraignment" is of no moment and has been rendered moot and academic by the fact that he had already posted the bail bonds and had pleaded not guilty to all the offenses;
- In not resolving the submission that the arraignment was void not only because it was made under compelling circumstance which left petitioner no option to question the respondent Judge's arbitrary action but also because it emanated from a void Order;
- In ruling that the denial of petitioner's motion to quash may not be impugned in a petition for certiorari; and
- In not resolving the legal issue of whether or not petitioner may be validly charged for violation of Section 5(b) of RA No. 7610 under several informations corresponding to the number of alleged acts of child abuse allegedly committed against each private complainant by the petitioner.
First. As already stated, the trial court's order, dated May 16, 1997, imposed four conditions for the grant of bail to petitioner:
The Court of Appeals 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. Petitioner takes issue with the Court of Appeals with respect to its treatment of condition (d) of the May 16, 1997 order of the trial court which makes petitioner's arraignment a prerequisite to the approval of his bail bonds. His contention is that this condition is void and that his arraignment was also invalid because it was held pursuant to such invalid condition.
a)
b)
c)
d)
We agree with petitioner that the appellate court should have determined the validity of the conditions imposed in the trial court's order of May 16, 1997 for the grant of bail because petitioner's contention is that his arraignment was held in pursuance of these conditions for bail.
In requiring that petitioner be first arraigned before he could be granted bail, the trial court apprehended that if petitioner were released on bail he could, by being absent, prevent his early arraignment and thereby delay his trial until the complainants got tired and lost interest in their cases. Hence, to ensure his presence at the arraignment, approval of petitioner's bail bonds should be deferred until he could be arraigned. After that, even if petitioner does not appear, trial can proceed as long as he is notified of the date of hearing and his failure to appear is unjustified, since under Art. III, §14(2) of the Constitution, trial in absentia is authorized. This seems to be the theory of the trial court in its May 16, 1997 order conditioning the grant of bail to petitioner on his arraignment.
This theory is mistaken. In the first place, as the trial court itself acknowledged, in cases where it is authorized, 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.[8]
It is the condition in the May 16, 1997 order of the trial court that "approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after arraignment," which the Court of Appeals should instead have declared void. The condition imposed in the trial court's order of May 16, 1997 that the accused cannot waive his appearance at the trial but that he must be present at the hearings of the case is valid and is in accordance with Rule 114. For another condition of bail under Rule 114, §2(c) is that "The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification despite due notice to him or his bondsman shall be deemed an express waiver of his right to be present on the date specified in the notice. In such case, trial shall proceed in absentia."
Art. III, §14(2) of the Constitution authorizing trials in absentia allows the accused to be absent at the trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit: (a) at arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilt,[9] (b) during trial whenever necessary for identification purposes,[10] and (c) at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in which case the accused may appear by counsel or representative.[11] At such stages of the proceedings, his presence is required and cannot be waived. As pointed out in Borja v. Mendoza,[12] in an opinion by Justice, later Chief Justice, Enrique Fernando, there can be no trial in absentia unless the accused has been arraigned.
Undoubtedly, the trial court knew this. Petitioner could delay the proceedings by absenting himself from the arraignment. But once he is arraigned, trial could proceed even in his absence. So it thought that to ensure petitioner's presence at the arraignment, petitioner should be denied bail in the meantime. The fly in the ointment, however, is that such court strategy violates petitioner's constitutional rights.
Second. Although this condition is invalid, it does not follow that the arraignment of petitioner on May 23, 1997 was also invalid. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the arraignment did not emanate from the invalid condition that "approval of the bail bonds shall be made only after the arraignment." Even without such a condition, the arraignment of petitioner could not be omitted. In sum, although the condition for the grant of bail to petitioner is invalid, his arraignment and the subsequent proceedings against him are valid.
Third. Petitioner concedes that the rule is that 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. However, he argues that this case should be treated as an exception. He contends that the Court of Appeals should not have evaded the issue of whether he should be charged under several informations corresponding to the number of acts of child abuse allegedly committed by him against each of the complainants.
In Tano v. Salvador,[13] the Court, while holding that certiorari will not lie from a denial of a motion to quash, nevertheless recognized that there may be cases where there are special circumstances clearly demonstrating the inadequacy of an appeal. In such cases, the accused may resort to the appellate court to raise the issue decided against him. This is such a case. Whether petitioner is liable for just one crime regardless of the number of sexual acts allegedly committed by him and the number of children with whom he had sexual intercourse, or whether each act of intercourse constitutes one crime is a question that bears on the presentation of evidence by either party. It is important to petitioner as well as to the prosecution how many crimes there are. For instance, if there is only one offense of sexual abuse regardless of the number of children involved, it will not matter much to the prosecution whether it is able to present only one of the complainants. On the other hand, if each act of sexual intercourse with a child constitutes a separate offense, it will matter whether the other children are presented during the trial.
The issue then should have been decided by the Court of Appeals. However, instead of remanding this case to the appellate court for a determination of this issue, we will decide the issue now so that the trial in the court below can proceed without further delay.
Petitioner's contention is that the 12 informations filed against him allege only one offense of child abuse, regardless of the number of alleged victims (four) and the number of acts of sexual intercourse committed with them (twelve). He argues that the act of sexual intercourse is only a means of committing the offense so that the acts of sexual intercourse/lasciviousness with minors attributed to him should not be subject of separate informations. He cites the affidavits of the alleged victims which show that their involvement with him constitutes an "unbroken chain of events," i.e., the first victim was the one who introduced the second to petitioner and so on. Petitioner says that child abuse is similar to the crime of large-scale illegal recruitment where there is only a single offense regardless of the number of workers illegally recruited on different occasions. In the alternative, he contends that, at the most, only four informations, corresponding to the number of alleged child victims, can be filed against him.
Art. III, §5 of R.A. No. 7160 under which petitioner is being prosecuted, provides:
Sec. 5 Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.The elements of the offense are as follows: (1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) that said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child,[14] whether male or female, is or is deemed under 18 years of age. Exploitation in prostitution or other sexual abuse occurs when the child indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other consideration; or (b) under the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate, or group.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
. . . .
b)
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 thus a separate and distinct offense. The offense is similar to rape or act of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code in which each act of rape or lascivious conduct should be the subject of a separate information. This conclusion is confirmed by Art. III, §5(b) of R.A. No. 7160, which provides:
[t]hat when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period;WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE and another one is RENDERED declaring the orders dated May 16, 1997 and May 23, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 107, Quezon City to be valid, with the exception of condition (d) in the second paragraph of the order of May 16, 1997 (making arraignment a prerequisite to the grant of bail to petitioner), which is hereby declared void.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Petition, Appendix F; Rollo, pp. 78-85.
[2] Id., Appendix B, pp. 18-19; id., pp. 65-66.
[3] Id., Appendix J; id., pp. 115-122.
[4] Id., Appendix I; id., pp. 111-114.
[5] The conditions declared void were the following:
[6] Petition, Appendix A, p. 8; Rollo, p. 47.
a)
b)
[7] Id., p. 14; id., p. 16.
[8] Under Art. III, §5 of R.A. No. 7610, the offenses with which petitioner is charged are punishable by reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.
[9] Rule 116, §1(b)
[10] People v. Avanceña, G.R. No. 37005, Oct. 13, 1933, 32 O.G. 713 (1934); Aquino v. Military Commission No. 2, 63 SCRA 546 (1975); People v. Salas, 143 SCRA 163 (1986)
[11] Rule 120, §6.
[12] 77 SCRA 422 (1977)
[13] 278 SCRA 154 (1997)
[14] Under R.A. No. 7160, Art. I, §3(a):
"Children" refers to persons below eighteen (18) years of age or those but [sic] are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition;. . . .