Criminal Due Process

21.Tatad v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. Nos. L-72335-39
March 21, 1998

Facts:

The complainant, Antonio de los Reyes, originally filed what he termed "a report" with the Legal Panel of the Presidential
Security Command (PSC) on October 1974, containing charges of alleged violations of RA No. 3019 against then Secretary of Public
Information Francisco S. Tatad. The "report" was made to "sleep" in the office of the PSC until the end of 1979 when it became
widely known that Secretary Tatad had a falling out with President Marcos and had resigned from the Cabinet. On December 12,
1979, the 1974 complaint was resurrected in the form of a formal complaint filed with the Tanodbayan. The Tanodbayan acted on
the complaint on April 1, 1980 which was around two months after petitioner Tatad's resignation was accepted by Pres. Marcos by
referring the complaint to the CIS, Presidential Security Command, for investigation and report. On June 16, 1980, the CIS report
was submitted to the Tanodbayan, recommending the filing of charges for graft and corrupt practices against former Minister Tatad
and Antonio L. Cantero. By October 25, 1982, all affidavits and counteraffidavits were in the case was already for disposition by the
Tanodbayan. However, it was only on June 5, 1985 that a resolution was approved by the Tanodbayan. Five criminal information
were filed with the Sandiganbayan on June 12, 1985, all against petitioner Tatad alone.

Issue:Whether or not the accused was deprived of his constitutional right to due process?

Ruling:
Yes. Due process and right to speedy disposition of trial were violated. First, the complaint came to life, only after
petitioner Tatad had a falling out with President Marcos. Second, departing from established procedures prescribed by law for
preliminary investigation, which require the submission of affidavits and counteraffidavits by the complainant and the respondent
and their witnesses, the Tanodbayan referred the complaint to the Presidential Security Command for finding investigation and
report. P.D. 911 prescribes a ten-day period for the prosecutor to resolve a case under preliminary investigation by him from its
termination. Although, the period fixed by law was merely directory, a delay of close to three years cannot be deemed reasonable.

22.Galman v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 72670
September 12, 1986

Facts: 
An investigating committee was created to determine the facts on the case involving the assassination of Ninoy Aquino. It
appears that majority and minority reports showed that they are unconvinced on the participation of Galman as the assassin of late
Sen. Aquino. Majority reports recommended the 26 military respondents as indictable for the premeditated killing of Aquino and
Galman which the Sandiganbayan did not give due consideration.

The office of the Tanod Bayan was originally preparing a resolution charging the 26 military accused as principal to the
crime against Aquino but was recalled upon the intervention of President Marcos who insist on the innocence of the accused.
Marcos however recommended the filing of murder charge and to implement the acquittal as planned so that double jeopardy may
be invoked later on.

The petitioners filed an action for miscarriage of justice against the Sandiganbayan and gross violation of constitutional
rights of the petitioners for failure to exert genuine efforts in allowing the prosecution to present vital documentary evidence and
prayed for nullifying the bias proceedings before the Sandiganbayan and ordering a re-trial before an impartial tribunal.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner was deprived of his rights as an accused? 

Held: 

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution was deprived of fair opportunity to prosecute. The court further contends
that the previous trial was a mock trial where the authoritarian President ordered the Sandiganbayan and Tanod Bayan to closely
monitor the trial which was undertaken with due pressure to the judiciary. The court’s decision of acquittal is one void of jurisdiction
owing to its failure in observing due process during the trial therefore the judgment was also deemed void. More so, the trial was
one vitiated with lack of due process on the account of collusion between the lower court and Sandiganbayan for the rendition of a
pre-determined verdict of the accused.

The denial on the motion for reconsideration of the petitioners by the court was set aside and rendered the decision of acquittal of
the accused null and void. An order for a re-trial was granted.

23. Alonte v. Savellano

G.R. No. 131652
March 9, 1998

FACTS:
Alonte was accused of raping JuvieLynPunongbayan 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. 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 RTC 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.

ISSUE: Whether or not Alonte has been denied criminal due process.

HELD:
The SC 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.