G.R. No. 131652.

March 9, 1998

BAYANI M. ALONTE, Petitioner, v. HON. MAXIMO A. SAVELLANO JR., NATIONAL

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

Facts:

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.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not Alonte has been denied due process.

Held:

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. 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 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.20 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.

The case was remanded for further proceedings. And, since the case would
have to be sent back to the court a quo, this ponencia has carefully avoided
making any statement or reference that might be misconstrued as
prejudgment or as pre-empting the trial court in the proper disposition of the
case. The Court likewise deems it appropriate that all related proceedings
therein, including the petition for bail, should be subject to the proper
disposition of the trial court.

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 further
proceedings; and