"Alonte VS. Savellano, Jr. (287 SCRA 245)"

Facts:

Pending before the court are two separate petitioners, one filed by petitioner Bayani M. Alonte, docketed G.r. No. 131652, and the other by petitioner Buenaventura Concepcion, docketed G.R. No. 131728, that assail the decision of the respondent Judge Maximo A. Savellano, Jr.., of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, of Manila finding both petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. The two petitioners were consolidated.
On December 5, 1996, an information for rape was filed against petitioners Bayani M. Alonte, an incumbent Mayor of Biñan Laguna and Buenaventura Concepcion predicated on a complaint filed by Juvie-Lyn Punongbayan.
The case was docketed Criminal Case No. 9619-B and as signed by raffle to Branch 25 of the RTC of Biñan Laguna presided over by Judge Pablo B. Francisco.
On December 13, 1996, Juvie-lyn Punongbayan, through her counsel Attorney Remedios C. Balbin, and Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Leonardo Guiab, Jr., filed with the Office of the Court Administrator a petitione for a change of venue (docketed Administrative Matter No. 97-1-12-RTC) to have the case transferred and tried by any of the Regional Trial Courts in Metro Manila.
On June 28, 1997, Atty. Ramon C.Casano on behalf of petitioners, moved to have the petition for change of venue dismissed on the ground that it had become moot in view of complainant’s affidavit of desistance. On August 22, 1997, ACSP Guiab filed his comment on the motion to dismiss. Guiab asserted that he was not aware of the desistance of private complainant and opined that the desistance, in any case, would not produce any legal effect since it was the public prosecutor who had direction and control of the prosecution of the criminal action. He prayed for the denial of the motion to dismiss.
On September 17, 1997, the case, now re-docketed Criminal case No. 97-159935 by the Clerk of Courts of Manila, was assigned by raffle to Branch 53, RTC Manila, with respondent Judge Maximo A. Savellano, Jr., presiding.
On October 7, 1997, Juvie-lyn Punongbayan, through Atty. Balbin, submitted to the Manila court, a compliance where she reiterated her decision to abide by her Affidavit of Desistance.
In an order, dated October 9, 1997, Judge Savellano found probable cause for the issuance of warrants for the arrest of petitioners Alonte and Concepcion without prejudice to, and independent of, this Court’s separate determination as the trier of facts, of the voluntariness and validity of the private complainant’s desistance in the lights of the opposition of the public prosecutor, Asst. Chief State Prosecutor Leonardo Guiab.

Issue/s:

*Whether or not there can be short-cut to the legal process, and there can be an excuse for not affording an accused his full day in court.
*Whether or not a case can be dismissed upon a mere affidavit of desistance of the complainant.
*Whether or not any pardon made by the private complainant, whether by sworn statement or on the witness stand, can extinguish criminal liability.
*Whether or not the death of the offended party can extinguish the case once it is filed in court.
*Whether or not the proceedings did conform with the procedure for trial as provided in the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
*Whether or not an opportunity to cross-examine was afforded petitioners and their counsels such that they can be deemed to have waived said right by inaction.
*Whether or not an evidence which a party desires to submits for the consideration of the court must formally be offered be offered by him.

Held/Ruling:

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 therefore 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. There can be no short-cut to the legal process, and there can be no excuse for not affording an accused hiss 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.

In private crimes, an affidavit of desistance filed by a private complainant is also frowned upon by the courts. Although such affidavit may deserve a second look at the case, there is hardly an instance when this court upheld it in private crimes and dismissed the case on the sole basis thereof. Indeed, a case is not dismissed where there exist special circumstances that raise doubts as to the reliability of the affidavit.

Article 344 also provides for the extinction of criminal liability in private crimes. It mentions two modes: pardon and marriage, which when validly and timely made, result in the total extinction of criminal liability of the offender. The pardon in private crimes must be made before the institution of the criminal action. In adultery and concubinage, the pardon may be express or implied while in seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness, the pardon must be express. In all cases, the pardon must come prior to the institution of the criminal action. After the case has been filed in court, any pardon made by the private complainant, whether by sworn statement or on the witness stand, cannot extinguish criminal liability. The only act that extinguishes the penal action and the penalty that may have been imposed is the marriage between the offender and the offended party.

The death of the offended party cannot extinguish the case once it is filed in court. If the offended party dies immediately after filing the complaint but before the institution of the criminal action, his death is not a ground to dismiss the case. Clearly, the will and participation of the offended party is necessary only to determine whether to file the complaint or not. Thereafter, the will of the State prevails.

The proceedings did not conform with the procedure for trial as provided in the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Petitioners were never instructed to present evidence to prove their defenses. The parties were never given the opportunity to present their respective evidence rebutting the testimony of private complainant. There was no admission by petitioners of the charge in the information as to justify a change in the order of trial.

Following respondent judge’s finding and assuming that the November 7, 1997 hearing was already a trial on the merits, petitioners were never afforded their right to confront and cross-examine the witness. The court did not, at the very least, inquire as to whether the petitioners wanted to cross-examine private complainant with respect to her affidavit of October 21, 1996. No opportunity to cross-examine was afforded petitioners and their counsels such that they cannot be deemed to have waived said right by inaction.

The admission of private complainant’s affidavit of October 21, 1996 was made solely in response to respondent judge’s questioning. It was this affidavit which respondent judge used to convict the petitioners. This affidavit, however, was not marked nor was it formally offered before the court. The Revised Rules on Evidence clearly and expressly provide that “the court shall consider no evidence which has not formally offered.” Evidence not formally offered in court will not be taken into consideration by the court in disposing of the issues of the case. Any evidence which a party desires to submit for the consideration of the court must formally be offered by him, otherwise it is excluded and rejected.

The Court hereby RULES that-

(a) The submission of the “Affidavit of Desistance” executed by Juvie-lyn Y.Punongbayan on June 25, 1997, having been filed after the institution of Criminal Case No. 97-159935, does not warrant the dismissal of said criminal case;

(b) For failure of due process, the assailed judgement, dated December 12, 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

(c) Judge Maximo A. Savellano Jr., presiding judge of Branch 53 of RTC of Manila, is ENJOINED from further hearing Criminal Case No. 97-159935; instead, the case shall immediately be scheduled for raffle among the other branches of that court for proper disposition.