PEOPLE v. Lavides, GR No.

129670 (Feb 1, 2000)

Topic: Complex Crimes

Disclaimer: Issue of the case is only related to the topic at hand

FACTS:
Petitioner Manolet Lavides was arrested on April 3, 1997 for child abuse under R.A. No. 7610. 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. 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. 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." 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. 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. Trial court
denied such motions. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:
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.

HELD:
No. Each incident of sexual intercourse and lascivious act with a child under the circumstances
mentioned in Air. 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;