Criminal Procedure 2E

TOPIC Definition of Remedial Law, Criminal Procedure; Criminal Law DATE 9 March 1998
vs. Criminal Procedure; Due Process in Criminal Procedure
CASE TITLE Alonte v. Savellano GR NO 131652

DOCTRINE There can be no short-cut to the legal process, andthere can be no excuse for not affording an accused
his full day in court. Requisites of due process in criminal proceedings
FACTS Alonte was accused of raping JuvieLyn Punongbayan with accomplice Buenaventura Concepcion.
It was alleged that Concepcion befriended Juvie and had later lured her into Alonete’s house
who was then the mayor of Biňan,Laguna. The case was brought before RTC Biňan. The counsel
and the prosecutor later moved for a change of venue due to alleged intimidation. Whilethe
change of venue was pending, Juvie executed an affidavit of desistance. Theprosecutor
continued on with the case and the change of venue was donenotwithstanding opposition from
Alonte. The case was raffled to the Manila RTCunder J Savellano. Savellano later found probable
cause and had ordered thearrest of Alonte and Concepcion. Thereafter, the prosecution
presented Juvieand had attested the voluntariness of her desistance the same being due
tomedia pressure and that they would rather establish new life elsewhere. Casewas then
submitted for decision and Savellano sentenced both accused toreclusion perpetua. Savellano
commented that Alonte waived his right to dueprocess 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.
ISSUE/S Substantive
1. Whether or not Alonte has been denied criminal Due Process

RATIO Substantive
1. Yes. 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 pre sent 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.

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.
RULING For FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS, the assailed judgment, dated 12 December 1997, convicting
petitioners is declared NULL AND VOID and thereby SET ASIDE; accordingly, the case is REMANDED
to the trial court for furtherproceedings
NOTES

1
 Criminal Procedure 2E