G.R. No. 131652
March 9, 1998
Facts
Petitioners Bayani Alonte, an incumbent mayor, and Buenaventura Concepcion were charged with the crime of rape. Juvie-lyn Punongbayan alleged that the accused Alonte gave her drinking water which made her dizzy and weak. Thereafter, Alonte willfully and intentionally raped her. On the other hand, Concepcion is the one who brought Punongbayan to the rest house of Mayor Alonte in exchange of P1,000.
The case was assigned to Branch 25 RTC Binan. However, Punongbayan filed for a petition to change venue to have the case tried in Metro Manila. During the pendency of the petition, Punongbayan executed an affidavit of desistance praying that she be allowed to withdraw her complaint of rape. Moreover, the petition for change of venue was granted and the case was raffled to respondent Judge Savellano. Respondent Judge found probable cause for the issuance of the warrants of arrest. Petitioners were arraigned and both pleaded not guilty. Moreover, petitioners waived pretrial.
As per Savellano, both parties agreed to proceed with the trial of the case on the merits. However, respondent only allowed the prosecution to present evidence relative only to the validity of the affidavit of desistance. During the trial, the prosecutor presented evidence that the affidavit of desistance was made freely and voluntarily. She then moved for the dismissal of the case. Thereupon, the respondent judge considered the case submitted for decision.
Mayor Alonte filed an “Urgent Motions to Admit Bail” which was not acted upon by respondent judge. Moreover, he filed five motions for early resolution but was not acted upon by respondent judge. Petitioner Alonte then received a notice for promulgation of decision but such notice was not received by Concepcion. The judgement however concludes that both petitioners are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
In view of the foregoing, petitioners filed the instant “Ex Abundante Ad Cautelam” for Certiorari, Prohibition, Habeas Corpus, Bail, Recusation of respondent Judge, and for Disciplinary Action against an RTC Judge. On the other hand, petitioner Concepcion file a petition for review on certiorari. Both prayed that the decision shall be dismissed since petitioners were not afforded their constitutional right to due process. They further contend that there was no trial conducted aside from the arraignment of the accused and the determination of the validity and voluntariness of the affidavit of desistance.
In his defense, respondent Judge contends that after the waiver of pre-trial, the trial of the case did proceed on the merits but the two accused did not present any countervailing evidence during the trial but rested and submitted the case for decision merely on the basis the affidavit of desistance.
Issue
Whether or not herein petitioners are not afforded of their constitutional rights to due process?
Held
Yes. According to Section 1, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution, “no one shall be deprived of their right to life, liberty, and property without due process of law.” Jurisprudence acknowledges that due process in criminal proceedings, in requires (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; © that the accused is given an opportunity to be heard; and (d) that judgment is rendered only upon lawful hearing.
In this case, the following requisites of due process in criminal proceedings was not followed since the accused was not given opportunity to be heard and the judgement is rendered not upon a lawful hearing. This is evident in the case since the (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.
Hence, the case must be remanded for further proceedings.