Você está na página 1de 2

Case 4

Alonte v. Savellano
G.R. No. 131652
Mar. 9, 1998

Facts:
These are 2 separate petitions that assail the decision of Judge Maximo Savellano Jr.
finding the petitioners Mayor Bayani Alonte of Bian, Laguna and Buenaventura Concepcion
guilty of the crime of rape.
Petitioner Alonte was accused of raping Ms. Juvie-lyn Punongbayan who was a minor at
the time. Concepcion was accused as an accomplice who brought the victim to the rest house
of Alonte.
Juvie-lyn, with the assistance of her counsel requested that there be a change in venue
because she, her family, and ever her counsel had been harassed and threatened during the
pendency of the proceedings.
Suddenly, during the pendency of the petition for change of venue, Juvie-lyn, assisted by
counsel, executed an affidavit of desistance in which she requests that her complaint for rape
and child abuse be withdrawn.
The Supreme Court granted the change of venue and the case fell into the hands of
respondent judge in Manila RTC branch 53. Respondent judge issued warrants of arrest against
petitioners. Both parties waived pre trial and so the case was to be decided on the merits.
Respondent Judge allowed only the prosecution to present evidence relative only to the
question of voluntariness and the validity of the affidavit of desistance to which they established
that it was given freely and voluntarily.
Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the case but respondent said that the case was
already submitted for decision. Finally, respondent judge promulgated the decision in absentia
(both accused were unable to attend due to different reasons Alonte hypertension,
Concepcion not notified) to which he declared them both guilty.
Petitioners contend that their right to due process was violated because the order of trial
was not followed and the petitioners were not given the opportunity to cross-examine the
affiants.
Respondent contends that each of the accused were represented by counsel of choice
and none of them said that they wanted to cross-examine the victim when she testified. The
opportunity was missed/not used hence waived. The rule of case law is that the right to cross-
examine is a personal one and may be waived.

Issue:
Whether or not due process was violated by not following the order of trial according to
Sec. 3 Rule 119 of the Rules of Court and not allowing petitioners to cross-examine the witness.
Also, whether or not a case may be dismissed based off an affidavit of desistance.

Ruling:
Petition is meritorious. The decision of respondent judge is declared null and void for
failure of due process. Due process in criminal proceedings require that: 1.) court trying the
case is properly clothed with judicial power to hear the case; 2.) jurisdiction is lawfully acquired
by it over the accused; 3.) accused is given the opportunity to be heard; and 4.) judgment is
rendered only upon lawful hearing. These are mandatory and indispensable.
The Solicitor General has aptly discerned a few of the deviations from what otherwise
should have been the regular course of trial: (1) Petitioners have not been directed to present
evidence to prove their defenses nor have dates therefor been scheduled for the purpose; (2)
the parties have not been given the opportunity to present rebutting evidence nor have dates
been set by respondent Judge for the purpose; and (3) petitioners have not admitted the act
charged in the Information so as to justify any modification in the order of trial. There can be no
short-cut to the legal process, and there can be no excuse for not affording an accused his full
day in court. Due process, rightly occupying the first and foremost place of honor in our Bill of
Rights, is an enshrined and invaluable right that cannot be denied even to the most
undeserving.
Respondents contention that petitioners have waived their right to cross-examine is not
proper. The existence of a waiver must be properly demonstrated. The standard of waiver
requires that it not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent and done with
sufficient awareness of the consequences. Mere silence of the holder should not be construed
as a waiver of right.

Additional - Sec. 3 Rule 119 of the Rules of Court:


Sec. 3. Order of trial. The trial shall proceed in the following order:
(a) The prosecution shall present evidence to prove the charge and, in the proper case, the civil
liability.
(b) The accused may present evidence to prove his defense, and damages, if any, arising from
the issuance of any provisional remedy in the case.
(c) The parties may then respectively present rebutting evidence only, unless the court, in
furtherance of justice, permits them to present additional evidence bearing upon the main issue.
(d) Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision unless the
court directs the parties to argue orally or to submit memoranda.
(e) However, when the accused admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or
information but interposes a lawful defense, the order of trial may be modified accordingly.

Você também pode gostar