Alonte vs Savellano

Bayani M. Alonte, incumbent Mayor of Biñan, Laguna, was accused of raping Juvie-Lyn Punongbayan
with accomplice Buenaventura Concepcion. It was alleged that Concepcion befriended Juvie and had
later lured her into Alonte’s house. The case was brought before the Regional Trial Court of Biňan. The
counsel and the prosecutor later moved for a change of venue due to alleged intimidation. While the
change of venue was pending, Juvie executed an affidavit of desistance. The prosecutor continued on
with the case and the change of venue was done notwithstanding opposition from Alonte. The case was
raffled to the Manila Regional Trial Court under J Savellano. Savellano later found probable cause and
had ordered the arrest of Alonte and Concepcion. Thereafter, the prosecution presented Juvie and had
attested the voluntariness of her desistance the same being due to media pressure and that they would
rather establish new life elsewhere. Case was then submitted for decision and Savellano sentenced both
accused to reclusion perpetua. Savellano commented that Alonte waived his right to due process when
he did not cross examine Juvie when clarificatory questions were raised about the details of the rape
and on the voluntariness of her desistance.

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 private complainant’s “desistance” which, to them, was sufficient enough for their purposes.
They left everything to the so called “desistance”.

Ruling

The respondent judge rendered a decision in the case without conducting a trial on the facts
which would establish that complainant was raped by the petitioner, a clear manifestation of
denial of due process.

The Supreme Court ruled that Savellano should inhibit himself from further deciding on the case due to
animosity between him and the parties. There is no showing that Alonte waived his right. 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 likely consequences.” Mere silence of the holder
of the right should not be so construed as a waiver of right, and the courts must indulge every
reasonable presumption against waiver. Savellano has not shown impartiality by repeatedly not acting
on numerous petitions filed by Alonte. The case is remanded to the lower court for retrial and the
decision earlier promulgated is nullified.

Jurisprudence acknowledges that due process in criminal proceedings, in particular, require:

(a) that the court or tribunal trying the case is properly clothed with judicial power to hear and
determine the matter before it;

(b) that jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over the person of the accused;

(c) that the accused is given an opportunity to be heard; and

(d) that judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing.

The above constitutional and jurisprudential postulates, by now elementary and deeply imbedded in our
own criminal justice system, are mandatory and indispensable. The principles find universal acceptance
and are tersely expressed in the oft-quoted statement that procedural due process cannot possibly be
met without a “law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial.”