ALONTE v. SAVELLANO JR.

March 9, 1998 | Vitug, J. | Petition for Certiorari | General Considerations

PETITIONER: Bayani Alonte and Buenaventura Concepcion
RESPONDENT: Hon. Maximo A. Savellano Jr (RTC-Manila)., NBI, and People of the PH
SUMMARY: Alonte and Concepcion were accused and found guilty of raping Juvie-Lyn Punongbayan. In 2 separate petitions,
they assail the decision alleging: a) that the case should have been dismissed following the complainants submission of an affidavit
of desistance; there was failure of due process because the accused were not given the opportunity to present evidence to rebut the
allegations.
DOCTRINE: Criminal due process requirements: a) the tribunal trying the case is properly clotherd with judicial power to hear
and determine the matter before it; b) jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over the person of the accused; c) the accused is given
an opportunity to be heard; and d) judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing are mandatory and indispensable. // An affidavit
of desistance by itself is not a ground for the dismissal of the criminal case once the action has been instituted. //

FACTS:
1. On Dec. 5, 1996, an information for rape was filed against
petitioners predicated on a complaint filed by 17-year-old
Juvie-Lyn Punongbayan. (Allegation: Concepcion
brought the victim to the rest house in exchange for
P1,000. Alonte gave her drinking water which made her
dizzy and subsequently raped her.)
2. On Dec. 13, 1996, complainant, through her counsel and
Assistant Chief State Prosecutor (ACSP) Guiyab, filed a
Petition for a Change of Venue to transfer the case from
RTC Laguna to any RTC in Metro Manila.
3. On June 25, 1997, during the pendency of the petition for
change of venue, complainant, assisted by her parents and
counsel, executed an affidavit of desistance. (Reasons:
Interrupted schooling because of the slow legal process,
abnormal life for her family, wish to live elsewhere and
start over)
4. On June 28, counsel for petitioners moved to dismiss the
petition for change of venue but the same was granted.
The court said: These affidavits give specific names, dates,
and methods being used to abort, by coercion or
corruption the prosecution of [the case].
5. The case was raffled to Judge Savellano. They were
arraigned and both pleaded not guilty to the charge. The
parties waived pre-trial. After arraignment there was
merely a proceeding in conformity with AC 97-1-12-RTC
to determine the validity and voluntarienss of the affidavit
of desistance. Trial of the case did not proceed on merits.
Assistant State Prosecutor Campomanes then moved for
the dismissal of the case against petitioners for lack of
evidence against the accused. Judge Savellano submitted
the case for decision.
6. Judge Savellano did not act on Alontes subsequent
motions for bail. The decision was promulgated in
absentia as regards Concepcion, who denied having been
notified of the proceedings. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE/S:
1. WON the submission of the Affidavit of Desistance
warrants the dismissmal of the criminal case. NO
2. WON the decision of Judge Savellano is null and void for
failure of due process. YES
3. WON Judge Savellano should recuse from hearing the case.
YES

RULING: a) The submission of the Affidavit of Desistance,
executed by Juvie-Lyn Punongbayan on 25 June 1997, having
been filed AFTER the institution of the criminal case, DOES
NOT WARRANTY THE DISMISSAL of said case.

b) For FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS, the assailed judgment
convicting the petitioners is declared NULL AND VOID and
thereby SET ASIDE; accordingly the case is REMANDED to
the trial court for further proceedings; and

c) Judge Savellano is ENJOINED from further hearing the
case; instead, the case shall immediately be scheduled for
raffle among the other branches of that court for proper
disposition.

RATIO:
1. Const. Art. III, Sec 14 (1) and (2). Jurisprudence
acknowledge that there is criminal due process when: a)
the tribunal trying the case is properly clotherd with
judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it;
b) jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over the person of
the accused; c) the accused is given an opportunity to be
heard; and d) judgment is rendered only upon lawful
hearing. These postulates are mandatory and
indispensable.
2. The order of trial in criminal cases, as spelled out in Sec 3,
Rule 119 of the Rules of Court must be strictly followed.
In this case, (b) (c) and (e) were missing.
3. The existence of the waiver must be positively
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 relevant
circumstances and consequences.
4. The affidavit does not contain any statement that
disavows the veracity of her complaint. An affidavit of
desistance by itself, even when construed as a pardon in
the so-called private crimes, is not a ground for the
dismissal of the criminal case once the action has been
instituted. It may consititute evidence whose probative
value would be up to the court for proper evaluation.