CASE: Alonte vs Savellano
G. R. 131652
FACTS:
An information for rape was filed by Juvie-lyn Punongbayan, through
her counsel Atty. Remedios C. Balbin and Assistant Chief State
Prosecutor Leonardo Guiyab Jr., against Bayani M. Alonte, the
incumbent Mayor of Biñan, Laguna, and Buenaventura Concepcion
herein petitioners. Alleging that on September 12, 1996, the mayor,
giving her drinking water which made her weak and dizzy, raped her.
On December 13, 1996. Juvie-lyn and her counsel filed a petition for a
Change of Venue to have the case transferred to the RTC in Metro
Manila. However, during the pendency of the petition, Juvie-lyn,
assisted by her parents and counsel, executed an affidavit of
desistance, citing the effects of the case has on her and her family as
the reason.
Atty. Ramon C. Casino, on behalf of the petitioners, moved to have the
petition for Change of Venue dismissed due to the complainant’s
affidavit of desistance. ACSP Guiyab filed a comment on the motion to
dismiss, asserting that it was the public prosecution who had
direction and control of the prosecution, arguing as well the denial of
the dismissal. The Court then granted the petition for change of
venue.
The case was then assigned to Judge Maximo A. Savellano, Jr. He
then issued the warrants for the arrest of the petitioners. Atone
voluntarily surrendered, while Concepcion posted the recommended
bail of P150,000, they were then convicted guilty beyond reasonable
doubt.
Hence a motion for reconsideration was filed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is a violation of the petitioner’s right to due
process of law.
RULING:
Yes, The Court must admit that it is puzzled by the somewhat strange
way the case has proceeded below. Per Judge Savellano, after the
waiver by the parties of the pre-trial stage, the trial of the case did
proceed on the merits but that —
The two (2) accused did not present any countervailing evidence
during the trial. They did not take the witness stand to refute or deny
under oath the truth of the contents of the private complainant's
aforementioned affidavit which she expressly affirmed and confirmed
in Court, but, instead, thru their respective lawyers, they rested and
submitted the case for decision merely on the basis of the private
complainant's so called "desistance" which, to them, was sufficient
enough for their purposes. They left everything to the so-called
"desistance" of the private complainant.10
According to petitioners, however, there was no such trial for what
was conducted on 07 November 1997, aside from the arraignment of
the accused, was merely a proceeding in conformity with the
resolution of this Court in Administrative Case No. 97-1-12-RTC to
determine the validity and voluntariness of the affidavit of desistance
executed by Punongbayan.
It does seem to the Court that there has been undue precipitancy in
the conduct of the proceedings. Perhaps the problem could have well
been avoided had not the basic procedures been, to the Court's
perception, taken lightly.
CASE: People vs the Philippines vs Benedicto Dapitan.
G.R. 90625
FACTS:
Accused-Appellant Bendicto Dapitan was tried for the crime of
Robbery with Homicide, robbing Orencia E, Amil with his accomplice,
Fred de Guzman, who remains at large. Damaging her property nd
prejudice in the total amount of P1,513, as well as killing Rolando
Amil (an 8 year old boy) to prevent him from making an outcry.
Bendicto Dapitan was arraigned on November 25, 1986, and with the
help of his counsel de officio, Atty. Magsanoc, he entered a plea of not
guilty. A new counsel de officio, Atty. Gabriel Alberto of CLAO (Citizens
Legal Assistance Office) manifested that the accused expressed a
desire to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense.
The schedule hearing was canceled and reset to April 10, 1987. Come
the date, however, due to the absence of the counsel de officio, the
presiding judge also retired, replaced by Judge Francisco C.
Rodriguez, Jr. Various date thereafter, hearings were had until the
parties completed the presentation of their evidence. Accused-
Appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt thus leading to
him to appeal the decision of the court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Due Process was denied.
RULING:
No, Due process is satisfied if the following conditions are present: (1)
there must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear
and determine the matter before it; (2) jurisdiction must be lawfully
acquired by it over the person of the defendant or over the property
which is the subject of the proceeding; (3) the defendant must be given
an opportunity to be heard; and (4) judgment must be rendered upon
lawful hearing.21
In People vs. Castillo. We ruled that if an accused has been heard in a
court of competent jurisdiction, and proceeded against under the
orderly processes of law, and only punished after inquiry and
investigation, upon notice to him, with opportunity to be heard, and a
judgment awarded within the authority of the constitutional law, then
he has had due process .
