Alonte
vs. Sevillano. Jr.
G.R.
No. 131652 & 131728,287 SCRA 245, March 9, 1998
FACTS: Petitioners were charged for rape before
the RTC of Binan, Laguna. A petition for a change of venue to RTC of Manila was
filed by the offended party. During the pendency of such petition, the offended
party executed an affidavit of desistance. The court granted the change of
venue. Public respondent Judge Savellano issued warrant of arrest for both
petitioners. Alonte surrendered and Concepcion posted bail.
They pleaded “not
guilty” to the charge. 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 petitioners-accused were denied of due
process.
RULING: YES.
RULING: YES.
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. 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.”
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento