Crim Pro Cases Atty. Dimayuga

8/10/2019 Crim Pro Cases Atty. Dimayuga

1/179

G.R. No. 149453 May 28, 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.,vs.PANFILO M. LACSON

RESOLUTION

Before us is a petition for review on certiorariseeking to reverse and set aside the

Decision1of the Court of Appeals dated August 24, 2001 in CA-.!. "# $o. %&0'4. 2(he saidDecision of the appellate court granted respondent )acson*s "econd A+ended #etition for#rohiition with application for the issuance of a (e+porar !estraining rder, /1 assailingthe rder issued udge er+inia #asa+a of the !egional (rial Court /!(C of 3anila,Branch 40, that allowed the continuation of the re-investigation of Cri+inal Cases $os. -55-61%75 to -55-61%65 or the 8uratong Baleleng cases9 and /2 praing for the dis+issal ofCri+inal Cases $os. -01-101102 to -01-101112 entitled :#eople of the #hilippines v.#an;lo )acson, et al.: pending efore Branch 61 of the !(C of ue


2/179

/6 +uds+an Desierto referred the resolution for review a panel co+posed of ver-allDeput +uds+an rancisco Filla as head, and "pecial #rosecutor )eonardo (a+ao and

Assistant +uds+an Aelardo Aportadera as +e+ers. n $ove+er 20, 155&, the reviewpanel reversed the Blanca?or resolution and found proale cause for the prosecution of+ultiple +urder charges against twent-si /2% oicers and personnel of AB!>(.5

/5 n $ove+er 2, 155&, the +uds+an ;led efore the Sandiganbayan eleven /11>nfor+ations for 3G!D@!, docketed as Cri+inal Cases $os. 2'047 to 2'0&7, against

respondent #an;lo 3. )acson and twent-;ve /2& other accused. All twent-si /2% of the+were charged as principals.10(he following appear to e the victi+s= 3eleuren "orrondain Cri+. Case $o. 2'0479 Helor @lca+el in Cri+. Case $o. 2'0469 Carlito Alap-ap in Cri+.Case $o. 2'0459 ev !edillas in Cri+. Case $o. 2'0&09 !a Aalora in Cri+. Case $o.2'0&19 oel A+ora in Cri+. Case $o. 2'0&29 Ale $eri in Cri+. Case $o. 2'0&'9 !olando"iplon in Cri+. Case $o. 2'0&49 3anuel 3ontero in Cri+. Case $o. 2'0&&9 "herwin Aalorain Cri+. Case $o. 2'0&%9 and #aci;co 3ontero in Cri+. Case $o. 2'0&7.

/10 Gpon +otion of the respondent, the cri+inal cases were re+anded to the +uds+anfor reinvestigation. n 3arch 1, 155%, A+ended >nfor+ations were ;led against the sa+etwent-si /2% suspects ut the participation of respondent )acson was downgraded fro+principal to accessor. Arraign+ent then followed and respondent entered a plea of notguilt.11

/11 Hith the downgrading of charges against hi+, respondent )acson Euestioned theIurisdiction of theSandiganbayan to hear the cri+inal cases as none of the :principal:accused in the A+ended >nfor+ations was a govern+ent oicial with a "alar rade /" 27or higher, citing "ection 2 of !. A. $o. 757& then prevailing. Accordingl,the Sandiganbayan ordered the cases transferred to the !egional (rial Court.12

/12 (he ice of the "pecial #rosecutor ;led a +otion for reconsideration of the transfer.#ending resolution of the +otion, !. A. $o. 6245 took eect on eruar 2', 1557, a+ending!. A. $o. 757&. >n particular, the a+endator law deleted the word :principal: in "ection 2 of!. A. $o. 757&, there epanding the Iurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to include all caseswhere at least one of the accused, whether principal, acco+plice or accessor, is agovern+ent oicial of "alar rade /" 27 or higher. (he a+end+ent is +ade applicale to

all cases pending in an court in which trial has not et egun as of the date of itsapproval.1'

/1' >n )acson v. @ecutive "ecretar,14respondent )acson challenged the constitutionalitof the a+end+ent and contended that the Sandiganbayan had no Iurisdiction over thecri+inal cases. (his Court, while dis+issing the constitutional challenge, nonethelessordered the transfer of the cri+inal cases to the !egional (rial Court on the ground that the

A+ended >nfor+ations for +urder failed to indicate that the oenses charged therein wereco++itted in relation to, or in discharge of, the oicial functions of the respondent, asreEuired !. A. $o. 6245.

/14 Cri+inal Cases $os. 2'047 to 2'0&7 were raJed o to Branch 61 of the !egional (rialCourt of ue


3/179

;led ;ve separate ut identical +otions to /1 +ake a Iudicial deter+ination of the eistenceof proale cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest9 /2 hold in aeance the issuance ofthe warrants, and /' dis+iss the cases should the trial court ;nd lack of proale cause.

/17 (he records of the case efore us are not clear whether the private oended partieswere noti;ed of the hearing on 3arch 22, 15552'held udge Agnir to resolve the +otions;led respondent )acson and the other accused.

/16 During the said hearing, the private oended parties who desisted do not appear tohave een presented on the witness stand. >n their stead, Att. odwin Falde< testi;ed thathe assisted the+ in preparing their aidavits of desistance and that he signed said aidavitsas witness. n the other hand, Att. Aurora Bautista of the #hilippine )awer*s )eaguepresented the aidavits of recantation of prosecution witnesses @duardo de los !ees,

Ar+ando Capili and ane o+et is ti+e to writefnis to these cases and la to rest the ghost of the incident of 3a16, 155& so that all those involved--- the accused, the prosecution witnesses and theprivate co+plainants alike--- +a get on with their lives.

(he Court is not un+indful of the ad+onition in the recent case of #eople vs. Court ofAppeals /.!. $o. 12%00&, anuar 21, 1555 where the "upre+e Court said that thegeneral rule is that *if the >nfor+ation is valid on its face and there is no showing of+anifest error, grave ause of discretion or preIudice on the part of the pulicprosecutor, courts should not dis+iss it for want of evidence, ecause evidentiar+atters should e presented and heard during the trial*, and that the ruling in Allado

vs. Diokno *is an eception to the general rule and +a e invoked onl if si+ilarcircu+stances are clearl shown to eist.*

(his Court holds that the circu+stances in the case at ench clearl +ake aneception to the general rule.

H@!@!@, in view of the foregoing, the Court ;nds no proale cause for theissuance of the warrants of arrest against the accused or to hold the+ for trial.

Accordingl, the >nfor+ations in the aove-nu+ered cases are here ordereddis+issed.:

" !D@!@D.:2%

/20 n 3arch 27, 2001, #$# Director )eandro !. 3endonsp. Ls+ael ". Lu and #K" >nsp. Aelardo !a+os regardingtheKuratong Baleleng incident for preli+inar investigation. n the strength of thisindorse+ent, "ecretar of ustice ernando B. #ere< for+ed a panel to investigate the+atter. n April 17, 2001, the respondent was supoenaed to attend the investigation ofCri+inal Cases $os. -55-61%75 to -55-61%65.27

/21 n 3a 26, 2001, respondent )acson, et al., invoking, a+ong others, theirconstitutional right against doule Ieopard, ;led a petition for prohiition with applicationfor te+porar restraining order andKor writ of preli+inar inIunction with the !egional (rialCourt of 3anila, pri+aril to enIoin the "tate prosecutors fro+ conducting the preli+inarinvestigation. (he petition was docketed as Civil Case $o. 01-1005'' and raJed to Branch


4/179

40, presided udge er+inia F. #asa+a.26

/22 (he plea for te+porar restraining order was denied udge #asa+a in anrder25dated une &, 2001,viz=

:After a stud, this Court su+its that the dis+issal of Cri+inal Cases $os. -55-61%75 to -55-61%65 is not one on the +erits and without an recorded arraign+entand entered plea on the part of the herein petitioners. (he dis+issal was a direct

conseEuence of the ;nding of the uet is the #eople of the #hilippines who is the co+plainant in the8uratong Baleleng case and re+ains to e the co+plainant in the presentinvestigation initiated thru a letter of #$# Chief 3endonfor+ations for 3urder ;led againstpetitioners and others, all in de;ance of law and Iurisprudence as shown thefollowing=

/a !espondent Iudge had ruled on the +erits of the +ain prohiition action aquo rendering the sa+e +oot and acade+ic concluding that the dis+issal ofCri+inal Cases $os. -55-61%75--55-61%65 the C !(C was not ;nal andeecutor, hence NiO the co+plaints therein can e reinvestigated, and NiiO petitioner*sarraign+ent while the case had not et een re+anded to the C !(C and whilethe Sandiganbayan had valid Iurisdiction thereover NCri+inal Cases $o. 2'047-2046Owas void, notwithstanding that the onl issue in the (! application was the eistence


5/179

or lack of a valid co+plaint as de;ned in "1 and "', !ule 110.

/ !espondent udge ruled that respondent "tate #rosecutors could proceed to re-investigate and thereafter ;le new >nfor+ations on une %, 2001 covering thoseoenses suIect of Cri+inal Cases $os. -55-61%75--55-61%65 on the asis ofaidavits ;led after said cases were dis+issed on 3arch 25, 1555, despite the factthat under "ection 6, !ule 117, cases si+ilar to those ;led against the petitioner andothers /where the penalt i+posale is i+prison+ent of si /% ears or +ore cannot

e revived after two /2 ears fro+ the date the dis+issal order was issued./c !espondent udge held that the petitioner had not shown a right to e preserveddespite evidence showing the short cuts taken respondent "tate prosecutors in re-investigating a dis+issed case, in not co+pling with !ules in respect of its re-opening, and in insisting that a valid co+plaint was ;led in clear violation of the !ulesand case law thereon, and despite the fact that the petitioner had shown that aninetendile deadline of une &, 2001 was given hi+ to ;le his counter-aidavitwithout which his indict+ent for a non-ailale oense is assured ecause of D"ecretar ernando #eren su+, this Court is of the considered view that the suIect dis+issal of NtheOcri+inal cases was provisional in nature and that the cases presentl sought to eprosecuted the respondents are +ere revival or re-opening of the dis+issed cases.(he present controvers, eing one involving :provisional dis+issal: and revival ofcri+inal cases, falls within the purview of the prescriptive period provided under"ection 6, !ule 117 of the 2000 !evised !ules of Cri+inal #rocedure. (he secondparagraph of the said provision is couched in clear, si+ple and categorical words. >t+andates that for oenses punishale i+prison+ent of +ore than si /% ears, asthe suIect cri+inal cases, their provisional dis+issal shall eco+e per+anent two /2

ears after the issuance of the order without the case having een revived. >t shoulde noted that the revival of the suIect cri+inal cases, even if reckoned fro+ theD*s issuance of supoenas to petitioner, was co++enced onl on April 15, 2001,that is, +ore than two /2 ears after the issuance, on 3arch 25, 1555, of !(C-ue


6/179

respect to said accused, the proceedings conducted respondent "tate #rosecutorsin respect of the said cri+inal cases are declared $G)) A$D F>D and thecorresponding >nfor+ations, docketed as Cri+inal Cases $os. 01-101102 to 01-101112, entitled *#eople of the #hilippines vs. #an;lo 3. )acson, et al." and ;ledefore respondent udge 3aria (heresa ). Ladao of Branch 61 of the !egional (rialCourt of ue"3>""@D.

" !D@!@D.:'7

(he issue is whether "ection 6, !ule 117 ars the ;ling of the eleven /11 infor+ationsagainst the respondent )acson involving the killing of so+e +e+ers of theKuratong

Baleleng gang. (his rule which took eect on Dece+er 1, 2000 provides=

:"@C. 6.Provisional dismissal.-A case shall not e provisionall dis+issed ecept withthe epress consent of the accused and with notice to the oended part.

(he provisional dis+issal of oenses punishale i+prison+ent not eceeding si/% ears or a ;ne of an a+ount, or oth, shall eco+e per+anent one /1 ear afterissuance of the order without the case having een revived. Hith respect to oensespunishale i+prison+ent of +ore than si /% ears, their provisional dis+issalshall eco+e per+anent two /2 ears after issuance of the order without the casehaving een revived.:

)ike an other favorale procedural rule, this new rule can e given retroactive eect.owever, this Court cannot rule on this Iugular issue due to the lack of suicient factualases. (hus, there is need of proof of the following facts, viz: /1 whether the provisionaldis+issal of the cases had the epress consent of the accused9 /2 whether it was ordered the court after notice to the oended part, /' whether the 2-ear period to revive hasalread lapsed, and /4 whether there is an Iusti;cation for the ;ling of the cases eondthe 2-ear period.

(here is no uncertaint with respect to the fact that the provisional dis+issal of the casesagainst respondent )acson ears his epress consent. >t was respondent )acson hi+self who+oved to dis+iss the suIect cases for lack of proale cause efore then udge Agnir,hence, it is eond argu+ent that their dis+issal ears his epress consent.

(he records of the case, however, do not reveal with eEual clarit and conclusivenesswhether notices to the oended parties were given efore the cases against the respondent)acson were dis+issed then udge Agnir. >t appears fro+ the resolution of then udge

Agnir that the relatives of the victi+s who desisted did not appear during the hearing toair+ their aidavits. (heir aidavits of desistance were onl presented Att. odwin

Falde< who testi;ed that he assisted the private co+plainants in preparing their aidavitsand he signed the+ as a witness. >t also appears that onl seven /7 persons su+itted theiraidavits of desistance, na+el=

a. 3rna Aalora, +other of the victi+s "herwin Aalora and !e Aalora

. Car+elita @lca+el, wife of Hilur @lca+el9

c. )eonora A+ora, +other of victi+ oel A+ora9

d. $enita Alap-ap, wife of victi+ Carlito Alap-ap9

e. >+elda 3ontero, wife of victi+ 3anuel 3ontero9

f. 3argarita !edillas, +other of victi+ ilario ev !edillas9 and

g. !olando "iplon.

ro+ the records of the case efore us, it cannot e deter+ined whether there wereaidavits of desistance eecuted the relatives of the three /' '6other victi+s, na+el=3eleuren "oronda, #aci;co 3ontero, r., and Ale $eri. (he sa+e records do not showwhether the were noti;ed of the hearing or had knowledge thereof. (o e sure, it is not fair


7/179

to epect the ele+ent of notice to e litigated efore then udge Agnir for "ection 6, !ule117 was et ineistent at that ti+e.

(he fact of notice to the oended parties was not raised either in the petition for prohiitionwith application for te+porar restraining order or writ of preli+inar inIunction ;led respondent )acson in the !(C of 3anila, presided udge #asa+a, to enIoin theprosecutors fro+ reinvestigating the said cases against hi+. (he onl Euestion raised in saidpetition is whether the reinvestigation will violate the right of respondent )acson against

doule Ieopard. (hus, the issue of whether or not the reinvestigation is arred "ection 6,!ule 117 was not tackled the litigants.

$or was the fact of notice to the oended parties the suIect of proof after the eleven /11infor+ations for +urder against respondent )acson and co+pan were revived in the !(C ofue


8/179

CENITA M. CARIAGA, Petitioner, - versus -

PEOPLE OF THE , Respondent.

G.R. No. 180010Present:CARPIO MORALES,BRION,

BERSAMIN,ABAD,*andVILLARAMA, JR.,JJ.Prou!"ated:

Ju!# $%, &%'%

( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES,J.:

In )ssue )n te +resent +et)t)on or rev)e )s one o ur)sd)/t)on.

B# Reso!ut)ons o Ma# &0, &%%1 and Se+te2er &1, &%%1, te Court o A++ea!s, )n CA-

3.R. CR No. &45'6, 7People of the Philippines v. Cenita Cariaga,8 d)s)ssed te a++ea!

o Cen)ta Car)a"a 9+et)t)oner or !a/; o ur)sd)/t)on over te su2e/t atter.

Pet)t)oner, as te un)/)+a! treasurer o Ca2atuan, Isa2e!a )t a Sa!ar# 3rade o &6,

as /ar"ed 2eore te Re")ona!


9/179

"overnent )n te aount aorestated.CON< 90 MONS and ONE 9' DA oRECLSION


10/179

or !a/; o ur)sd)/t)on, o!d)n" tat )t )s te Sand)"an2a#an )/ as e(/!us)ve

a++e!!ate ur)sd)/t)on tereon. >e!d te a++e!!ate /ourt:Con/o)tant!#, ur)sd)/t)on over te oense )s vested )t te Re")ona!


11/179

or)")na! ur)sd)/t)on )n a!! /ases )nvo!v)n":( ( ( (

In %ases *he)e none o( the a%%'se a)e o%%'#in! ositions%o))esonin! to Sa&a)# G)ae 23 o) hi!he), as )es%)i"e in the saiRe'"&i% A%t No. 4258, o) /i&ita)# an PNP o((i%e)s /entione a"o-e,

e$%&'si-e o)i!ina& +')isi%tion the)eo( sha&& "e -este in the )oe))e!iona& t)ia& %o')t, /et)oo&itan t)ia& %o')t, /'ni%ia& t)ia& %o')t, an/'ni%ia& %i)%'it t)ia& %o')t, as the %ase /a# "e, ')s'ant to thei))ese%ti-e +')isi%tions as )o-ie in 6atas Pa/"ansa 6&!. 17, asa/ene.The Sani!an"a#an sha&& e$e)%ise exclusive appellate jurisdiction o-e)(ina& +'!/ents, )eso&'tions o) o)e)s o( )e!iona& t)ia& %o')ts *hethe)in the e$e)%ise o( thei) o*n o)i!ina& +')isi%tion o) o( thei) ae&&ate

+')isi%tion as he)ein )o-ie.$ $ $9e+as)s, )ta!)/s and unders/or)n"su++!)ed.

S)n/e te a++ea! )nvo!ves /r))na! /ases, and te +oss)2)!)t# o a +erson 2e)n" de+r)ved

o !)2ert# due to a +ro/edura! !a+se )!)tates a"a)nst te CourtFs d)s+ensat)on o ust)/e,

te Court "rants +et)t)onerFs +!ea or a re!a(at)on o te Ru!es.

or ru!es o +ro/edure ust 2e v)eed as too!s to a/)!)tate te atta)nent o ust)/e,

su/ tat an# r)")d and str)/t a++!)/at)on tereo )/ resu!ts )n te/n)/a!)t)es tend)n" to

rustrate su2stant)a! ust)/e ust a!a#s 2e avo)ded.?4@

In Ulep v. People,?'%@ te Court reanded te /ase to te Sand)"an2a#an en )t ound

tat( ( ( +et)t)onerFs a)!ure to des)"nate te +ro+er oru or er a++ea! as)nadvertent. e sou!d ave /ons/)ent)ous!# and/areu!!# o2served t)s res+ons)2)!)t# s+e/)a!!# )n /ases su/ as t)s ere a

+ersonFs !)2ert# as at sta;e. 9e+as)s and unders/or)n" su++!)ed
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/180010.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/180010.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/180010.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/180010.htm#_ftn11


12/179


13/179

"avellano, r., of the !egional (rial Court /:!(C:, Branch &', of 3anila ;nding othpetitioners guilt eond reasonale dout of the cri+e of rape. (he two petitions wereconsolidated.

n 0& Dece+er 155%, an infor+ation for rape was ;led against petitioners Baani 3.Alonte, an incu+ent 3aor of Bian, )aguna, and Buenaventura Concepcion predicated ona co+plaint ;led uvie-ln #unongaan. (he infor+ation contained the followingaver+ents9 thus=

(hat on or aout "epte+er 12, 155%, in "to. (o+as, Bian, )aguna, and within theIurisdiction of this onorale court, the aove na+ed accused, who is the incu+ent+aor of Bian, )aguna after giving co+plainant-child drinking water which +ade herdinvestigating #anel of the"tate #rosecutor*s ice, and the "ecretar of ustice, and /c a hold-departure order;led with the Bian Court.

'. (hat the legal process +oves ever so slowl, and +eanwhile, > have alread lost two/2 se+esters of + college residence. And when the actual trial is held after all thepreli+inar issues are ;nall resolved, > anticipate a still inde;nite suspension of +schooling to attend the hearings9

4. (hat during the entire period since > ;led the case, + fa+il has lived a +ostanor+al life= + father and +other had to give up their Ios9 + ounger rother,who is in fourth grade, had to stop his schooling, like +self9


14/179

& (hat > do not la+e anone for the long, Iudicial process, > si+pl wish to stop andlive elsewhere with + fa+il, where we can start life anew, and live nor+all onceagain9

%. (hat > pra that > e allowed to withdraw + co+plaint for rape and the othercharge for child ause wherein the ive-3an >nvestigating #anel of the ice of the"tate #rosecutor found a +rima aciecase although the infor+ation has not een ;led,and that > will not at an ti+e revive this, and related cases or ;le new cases, whether,

cri+inal, civil, andKor ad+inistrative, here or anwhere in the #hilippines97 (hat > likewise reali ai + signature this 2& da of une, 1557, in ue" C. BA)B>$

#rivate #rosecutor

>n the presence of=

/"gd #AB) #G$$BALA$

ather

/"gd G)>@ L. #G$$BALA$

3other

"GB"C!>B@D A$D "H!$ to efore +e this 2& da of une, 1557, in ue


15/179

3anila.

>$ F>@H H@!@, the #etition for Change of Fenue fro+ Bian, )aguna to the Citof 3anila is granted. (he @ecutive udge of !(C 3anila is ordered to raJe Cri+.Case $o. 5%15-B to an of its ranches. (he Iudge to who+ Cri+. Case $o. 5%15-Bshall e raJed shall resolve the petitioner*s 3otion to !esu+e #roceedings ;led in Br.PPF of the !(C of Bian, )aguna and deter+ine the voluntariness and validit ofpetitioner*s desistance in light of the opposition of the pulic prosecutor, Asst. Chief

"tate #rosecutor )eonardo uia. (he ranch clerk of court of Br. PPF of the !(C ofBian, )aguna is ordered to personall deliver to the @ecutive udge of 3anila theco+plete records of Cri+. Case $o. 5%15-B upon receipt of this !esolution.3

n 17 "epte+er 1557, the case, now re-docketed Cri+inal Case $o. 57-1&55&& theClerk of Court of 3anila, was assigned raJe to Branch &', !(C 3anila, with respondent

udge 3ai+o A. "avellano, r., presiding.

n 07 ctoer 1557, uvie-ln #unongaan, through Attorne Balin, su+itted to the3anila court a :co+pliance: where she reiterated :her decision to aide her Aidavit ofDesistance.:

>n an rder, dated 05 ctoer 1557, udge "avellano found proale cause for the issuanceof warrants for the arrest of petitioners Alonte and Concepcion :without preIudice to, and

independent of, this Court*s separate deter+ination as the trier of facts, of the voluntarinessand validit of the Nprivate co+plainant*sO desistance in the light of the opposition of thepulic prosecutor, Asst. Chief "tate #rosecutor )eonardo uia.:

n 02 $ove+er 1557, Alonte voluntaril surrendered hi+self to Director "antiago (oledoof the $ational Bureau of >nvestigation /:$B>:, while Concepcion, in his case, posted thereco++ended ail of #1&0,000.00.

n 07 $ove+er 1557, petitioners were arraigned and oth pleaded :not guilt: to thecharge. (he parties +anifested that the were waiving pre-trial. (he proceedings forthwithwent on. #er udge "avellano, oth parties agreed to proceed with the trial of the case onthe +erits.4According to Alonte, however, udge "avellano allowed the prosecution to presentevidence relative onl to the Euestion of the voluntariness and validit of the aidavit of

desistance.5>t would appear that i++ediatel following the arraign+ent, the prosecution presentedprivate co+plainant uvieln #unongaan followed her parents. During this hearing,#unongaan air+ed the validit and voluntariness of her aidavit of desistance. "hestated that she had no intention of giving positive testi+on in support of the chargesagainst Alonte and had no interest in further prosecuting the action. #unongaancon;r+ed= /i (hat she was co+pelled to desist ecause of the harass+ent she waseperiencing fro+ the +edia, /ii that no pressures nor in?uence were eerted upon her tosign the aidavit of desistance, and /iii that neither she nor her parents received a singlecentavo fro+ anod to secure the aidavit of desistance.

Assistant "tate #rosecutor 3ariln Ca+po+anes then presented, in seEuence= /i#unongaan*s parents, who air+ed their signatures on the aidavit of desistance and

their consent to their daughter*s decision to desist fro+ the case, and /ii Assistant#rovincial #rosecutor Alerto $ofuente, who attested that the aidavit of desistance wassigned #unongaan and her parents in his presence and that he was satis;ed that thesa+e was eecuted freel and voluntaril. inall, Ca+po+anes +anifested that in light ofthe decision of private co+plainant and her parents not to pursue the case, the "tate had nofurther evidence against the accused to prove the guilt of the accused. "he, then, +oved forthe :dis+issal of the case: against oth Alonte and Concepcion.

(hereupon, respondent Iudge said that :the case was su+itted for decision.:"

n 10 $ove+er 1557, petitioner Alonte ;led an :Grgent 3otion to Ad+it to Bail.: Assistant


16/179

"tate #rosecutor Ca+po+anes, in a Co++ent ;led on the sa+e date, stated that the "tateinterposed :no oIection to the granting of ail and in fact ustice and @Euit dictates that it

Ioins the accused in his praer for the granting of ail.:

!espondent Iudge did not act on the application for ail.

n 17 $ove+er 1557, Alonte ;led anew an Grgent #lea to !esolve the 3otion for Bail. neven date, A"# Ca+po+anes ;led a 3anifestation dee+ing :it proper and in accord with

Iustice and fair pla to Ioin the aforestated +otion.:Again, the respondent Iudge did not act on the urgent +otion.

(he records would indicate that on the 2&th $ove+er 1557, 1st Dece+er 1557, 6thDece+er 1557 and 10th Dece+er 1557, petitioner Alonte ;led a "econd, (hird, ourthand ifth 3otion for @arl !esolution, respectivel, in respect of his application for ail.$one of these +otions were acted upon udge "avellano.

n 17 Dece+er 1557, Attorne #hilip "igfrid A. ortun, the lead counsel for petitionerAlonte received a notice fro+ the !(C 3anila. Branch &', notifing hi+ of the schedule ofpro+ulgation, on 16 Dece+er 1557, of the decision on the case. (he counsel for accusedConcepcion denied having received an notice of the scheduled pro+ulgation.

n 16 Dece+er 1557, after the case was called, Att. "igrid ortun and Att. ose

la+iniano +anifested that Alonte could not attend the pro+ulgation of the decisionecause he was suering fro+ +ild hpertension and was con;ned at the $B> clinic andthat, upon the other hand, petitioner Concepcion and his counsel would appear not to haveeen noti;ed of the proceedings. (he pro+ulgation, nevertheless, of the decisionproceeded in absentia9 the reading concluded=

H@!@!@, Iudg+ent is here rendered ;nding the two /2 accused 3aor BaaniAlonte and Buenaventura :Hella: Concepcion guilt eond reasonale dout of theheinous cri+e of !A#@, as de;ned and penali


17/179

(he respondent udge co++itted grave ause of discretion a+ounting to lack orecess of Iurisdiction when, in total disregard of the !evised !ules on @vidence andeisting doctrinal Iurisprudence, he rendered a Decision in the case a quo/Anne Aon the asis of two /2 aidavits /#unongaan*s and Balin*s which were neit1ermar2ed nor o3ered into evidence by t1e +rosecution, nor without giving the petitioneran o++ortunity to cross-e/amine t1e a3iantsthereof, again in violation of petitioner*sright to due process /Article >>>, Q1, Constitution.

(he respondent udge co++itted grave ause of discretion a+ounting to lack orecess of Iurisdiction when he rendered a Decision in the case a quo withoutconducting a trial on the facts which would estalish that co+plainant was raped petitioner /!ule 115, Article >>>, Q1, Constitution, there setting a dangerousprecedent where heinous oenses can result in conviction without trial /then with+ore reason that si+pler oenses could end up with the sa+e result.8

n the other hand, Concepcion relies on the following grounds in support of his ownpetition9 thus=

1. (he decision of the respondent udge rendered in the course of resolving theprosecution*s +otion to dis+iss the case is a patent nullit for having een renderedwithout Iurisdiction, without the ene;t of a trial and in total violation of the

petitioner*s right to due process of law.2. (here had een no valid pro+ulgation of Iudg+ent at least as far as petitioner isconcerned.

'. (he decision had een rendered in gross violation of the right of the accused to afair trial an i+partial and neutral Iudge whose actuations and outlook of the casehad een +otivated a sinister desire to ride on the crest of +edia hpe thatsurrounded this case and use this case as a tool for his a+ition for pro+otion to ahigher court.

4. (he decision is patentl contrar to law and the Iurisprudence in so far as itconvicts the petitioner as a principal even though he has een charged onl as anacco+plice in the infor+ation.9

(he petitions deserve so+e +erit9 the Court will disregard, in view of the case +ilieu, thepre+aturit of petitioners* invocation, i.e., even efore the trial court could resolve Alonte*s+otion for reconsideration.

(he Court +ust ad+it that it is pu


18/179

the records of the case, the trial court certainl is not alone to la+e.

"ection 14, paragraphs /1 and /2, of Article >>>, of the Constitution provides thefunda+entals.

/1 $o person shall e held to answer for a cri+inal oense without due process oflaw.

/2 >n all cri+inal prosecutions, the accused shall e presu+ed innocent until the

contrar is proved, and shall enIo the right to e heard hi+self and counsel, to einfor+ed of the nature and cause of the accusation against hi+, to have a speed,i+partial, and pulic trial, to +eet the witnesses face to face, and to have co+pulsorprocess to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in hisehalf. owever, after arraign+ent, trial +a proceed notwithstanding the asence ofthe accused provided that he has een dul noti;ed and his failure to appear isunIusti;ale.

urisprudence11acknowledges that due process in cri+inal proceedings, in particular, reEuire/a that the court or triunal tring the case is properl clothed with Iudicial power to hear anddeter+ine the +atter efore it9 / that Iurisdiction is lawfull acEuired it over the person ofthe accused9 /c that the accused is given an opportunit to e heard9 and /d that Iudg+ent isrendered onl upon lawful hearing.12

(he aove constitutional and Iurisprudential postulates, now ele+entar and deepli+edded in our own cri+inal Iustice sste+, are +andator and indispensale. (heprinciples ;nd universal acceptance and are tersel epressed in the oft-Euoted state+entthat procedural due process cannot possil e +et without a :law which hears efore itconde+ns, which proceeds upon inEuir and renders Iudg+ent onl after trial.: 13

(he order of trial in cri+inal cases is clearl spelled out in "ection ', !ule 115, of the !ulesof Court9 viz=

"ec. '. rder of trial. R (he trial shall proceed in the following order=

/a (he prosecution shall present evidence to prove the charge and, in the propercase, the civil liailit.

/ (he accused +a present evidence to prove his defense, and da+ages, if an,arising fro+ the issuance of an provisional re+ed in the case.

/c (he parties +a then respectivel present reutting evidence onl, unless thecourt, in furtherance of Iustice, per+its the+ to present additional evidence earingupon the +ain issue.

/d Gpon ad+ission of the evidence, the case shall e dee+ed su+itted for decisionunless the court directs the parties to argue orall or to su+it +e+oranda.

/e owever, when the accused ad+its the act or o+ission charged in the co+plaint orinfor+ation ut interposes a lawful defense, the order of trial +a e +odi;edaccordingl.

>n &abao vs.(s+ina,14the Court has underscored the need to adhere strictl to the aove rules.>t re+inds that R

. . . each step in the trial process serves a speci;c purpose. >n the trial of cri+inalcases, the constitutional presu+ption of innocence in favor of an accused reEuiresthat an accused e given suicient opportunit to present his defense. "o, with theprosecution as to its evidence.

ence, an deviation fro+ the regular course of trial should alwas take intoconsideration the rights of all the parties to the case, whether in the prosecution ordefense. >n the eercise of their discretion, Iudges are sworn not onl to uphold thelaw ut also to do what is fair and Iust. (he Iudicial gavel should not e wielded


19/179

one who has an unsound and distorted sense of Iustice and fairness.15

Hhile udge "avellano has clai+ed in his Co++ent that R

#etitioners-accused were each represented during the hearing on 07 $ove+er 1557with their respective counsel of choice. $one of their counsel interposed an intentionto cross-ea+ine rape victi+ uvieln #unongaan, even after she attested, inanswer to respondent Iudge*s clari;cator Euestions, the voluntariness and truth of

her two aidavits R one detailing the rape and the other detailing the atte+pts to uher desistance9 t1e o++ortunity 4as missed5not used, 1ence 4aived. &1e rule o casela4 is t1at t1e rig1t to conront and cross-e/amine a 4itness "is a +ersonal one andmay be 4aived.: /e+phasis supplied R

it should e pointed out, however, that the eistence of the waiver +ust e positivelde+onstrated. (he standard of waiver reEuires that it :not onl +ust e voluntar, ut +uste knowing, intelligent, and done with suicient awareness of the relevant circu+stancesand likel conseEuences.:1"3ere silence of the holder of the right should not e so construedas a waiver of right, and the courts +ust indulge ever reasonale presu+ption againstwaiver.1(he "olicitor eneral has aptl discerned a few of the deviations fro+ what otherwiseshould have een the regular course of trial= /1 #etitioners have not een directed to presentevidence to prove their defenses nor have dates therefor een scheduled for the purpose9 18/2the parties have not een given the opportunit to present reutting evidence nor have dateseen set respondent udge for the purpose919and /' petitioners have not ad+itted the actcharged in the >nfor+ation so as to Iustif an +odi;cation in the order of trial.20(here can eno short-cut to the legal process, and there can e no ecuse for not aording an accused his fullda in court. Due process, rightl occuping the ;rst and fore+ost place of honor in our Bill of!ights, is an enshrined and invaluale right that cannot e denied even to the +ost undeserving.

(his case, in ;ne, +ust e re+anded for further proceedings. And, since the case would haveto e sent ack to the court a quo, this +onenciahas carefull avoided +aking an state+entor reference that +ight e +isconstrued as preIudg+ent or as pre-e+pting the trial court inthe proper disposition of the case. (he Court likewise dee+s it appropriate that all relatedproceedings therein, including the petition for ail, should e suIect to the properdisposition of the trial court.

$evertheless, it is needful to stress a few oservations on the aidavit of desistanceeecuted the co+plainant.

irstly, the aidavit of desistance of uvie-)n #unongaan, hereinefore Euoted, does notcontain an state+ent that disavows the veracit of her co+plaint against petitioners ut+erel seeks to :e allowed to withdraw: her co+plaint and to discontinue with the case for

varied other reasons. n this suIect, the case ofPeo+le vs.unio,21should e instructive.(he Court has there eplained=

(he appellant*s su+ission that the eecution of an Aidavit of Desistance co+plainant who was assisted her +other supported the :inherent incrediilit ofprosecution*s evidence: is specious. He have said in so +an cases that retractionsare generall unreliale and are looked upon with considerale disfavor the courts.(he unreliale character of this docu+ent is shown the fact that it is Euite

incredile that after going through the process of having accused-appellant arrested the police, positivel identifing hi+ as the person who raped her, enduring thehu+iliation of a phsical ea+ination of her private parts, and then repeating heraccusations in open court recounting her anguish, 3arIane would suddenl turnaround and declare that :NaOfter a careful delieration over the case, /she ;nd/s thatthe sa+e does not +erit or warrant cri+inal prosecution.

(hus, we have declared that at +ost the retraction is an afterthought which shouldnot e given proative value. >t would e a dangerous rule to reIect the testi+ontaken efore the court of Iustice si+pl ecause the witness who has given it later onchanged his +ind for one reason or another. "uch a rule will +ake a sole+n trial a


20/179

+ocker and place the investigation at the +erc of unscrupulous witnesses. Becauseaidavits of retraction can easil e secured fro+ poor and ignorant witnesses,usuall for +onetar consideration, the Court has invarial regarded such aidavitsas eceedingl unreliale Nlores vs. #eople, 211 "C!A %22, citingDe unter+ediate Appellate Court, 164 "C!A 1269 #eople vs. alicia, 12' "C!A &&0.O22

(he unio rule is no dierent fro+ ordinar cri+inal cases. or instance, inPeo+levs.Ballabare,23a +urder case, the Court has ruled=

(he contention has no +erit. (o egin with, the Aidavit eecuted eewitness(essie Asenita is not a recantation. (o recant a prior state+ent is to renounce andwithdraw it for+all and pulicl. N'% H!D" A$D #!A"@" %6', citing #radlik vs."tate, 41-A 2nd, 50%, 507.O >n her aidavit, (essie Asenita did not reall recant whatshe had said during the trial. "he onl said she wanted to withdraw her testi+onecause her father, )eonardo (acadao, "r., was no longer interested in prosecutingthe case against accused-appellant. (hus, her aidavit stated=

'. (hat inas+uch as + father, )eonardo (acadao, "r., the co+plainant therein, wasno longer interested to prosecute the case as +anifested in the "worn Aidavit ofDesistance efore the #rovincial #rosecutor, > do here H>(D!AH andKor !@F8@+ testi+on of record to con;r+ /sic with + father*s desire9

>t is asurd to disregard a testi+on that has undergone trial and scrutin thecourt and the parties si+pl ecause an aidavit withdrawing the testi+on issuseEuentl presented the defense. >n the ;rst place, an recantation +ust etested in a pulic trial with suicient opportunit given to the part adversel aected it to cross-ea+ine the recanting witness. >n this case, (essie Asenita was notrecalled to the witness stand to testif on her aidavit. er aidavit is thus hearsa. >twas her husand, !oEue Asenita, who was presented and the +atters he testi;ed todid not even ear on the sustance of (essie*s aidavit. e testi;ed that accused-appellant was not involved in the perpetration of the cri+e.

>n the second place, to accept the new evidence uncriticall would e to +ake asole+n trial a +ocker and place the investigation at the +erc of unscrupulouswitnesses. NDe unter+ediate Appellate Court, 164 "C!A 126, 1'4, citing

#eople vs. 3orales, 11' "C!A %6'.O or even assu+ing that (essie Asenita had +adea retraction, this circu+stance alone does not reEuire the court to disregard heroriginal testi+on. A retraction does not necessaril negate an earlier declaration.N#eople vs. Davatos, 225 "C!A %47.O or this reason, courts look with disfavor uponretractions ecause the can easil e otained fro+ witnesses usuall throughinti+idation or for +onetar considerations. N#eople vs. Cla+or, 156 "C!A %42.Oence, when confronted with a situation where a witness recants his testi+on,courts +ust not auto+aticall eclude the original testi+on solel on the asis of therecantation. (he should deter+ine which testi+on should e given credencethrough a co+parison of the original testi+on and the new testi+on, appling thegeneral rules of evidence. N!eano vs. Court of Appeals, 1%& "C!A &2&.O >n this casewe think the trial court correctl ruled.24

>t +a not e a+iss to state that courts have the inherent power to co+pel the attendance ofan person to testif in a case pending efore it, and a part is not precluded fro+ invokingthat authorit.25

Secondly, an aidavit of desistance itself, even when construed as a pardon in the so-called :private cri+es,: is not a ground for the dis+issal of the cri+inal case once the actionhas een instituted. (he aidavit, nevertheless, +a, as so earlier inti+ated, possilconstitute evidence whose weight or proative value, like an other piece of evidence, woulde up to the court for proper evaluation. (he decision in unio went on to hold R

Hhile :NtOhe oenses of seduction, aduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not


21/179

e prosecuted ecept upon a co+plaint ?ied the oended part or her parents,grandparents, or guardian, nor in an case, if the oender has een epresslpardoned the aove na+ed persons, as the case +a e,: N(hird par. of Art. '44,(he !evised #enal Code.O the pardon to Iustif the dis+issal of the co+plaint shouldhave een +ade prior to the institution of the cri+inal action. N#eople vs. @ntes, 10'"C!A 1%2, cited #eople vs. "oliao, 154 "C!A 2&0, which in turn is cited in #eople

vs. Fillorente, 210 "C!A %47.O ere, the +otion to dis+iss to which the aidavit of

desistance is attached was ;led after the institution of the cri+inal case. And, aiantdid not appear to e serious in :signifing /her intention to refrain fro+ testifing:since she still co+pleted her testi+on notwithstanding her earlier aidavit ofdesistance. 3ore, the aidavit is suspect considering that while it was dated :April1552,: it was onl su+itted so+eti+e in August 1552, four /4 +onths after the>nfor+ation was ;led efore the court a quoon % April 1552, perhaps dated as such tocoincide with the actual ;ling of the case.2"

>nPeo+le vs.6iranda,2appling the pertinent provisions of Article '44 of the !evised #enalCode which, in full, states R

Art. '44. #rosecution of the cri+es of adulter, concuinage, seduction, aduction,rape, and acts of lasciviousness. (he cri+es of adulter and concuinage shall not eprosecuted ecept upon a co+plaint ;led the oended spouse.

(he oended part cannot institute cri+inal prosecution without including oth theguilt parties, if the are oth alive, nor, in an case, if he shall have consented orpardoned the oenders.

(he oenses of seduction, aduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not eprosecuted ecept upon a co+plaint ;led the oended part or her parents,grandparents, or guardian, nor, in an case, if the oender has een epresslpardoned the aove na+ed persons, as the case +a e.

>n cases of seduction, aduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the +arriage of theoender with the oended part shall etinguish the cri+inal action or re+it thepenalt alread i+posed upon hi+. (he provisions of this paragraph shall also eapplicale to the coprincipals, acco+plices and accessories after the fact of the aove-

+entioned cri+es.the Court said=

#aragraph ' of the legal provision aove Euoted prohiits a prosecution for seduction,aduction, rape, or acts of lasciviousness, ecept upon a co+plaint +ade theoended part or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in an case, if theoender has een epressl pardoned the aove-na+ed persons, as the case +ae. >t does not prohiit the continuance of a prosecution if the oended part pardonsthe oender after the cause has een instituted, nor does it order the dis+issal of saidcause. (he onl act that according to article '44 etinguishes the penal action and thepenalt that +a have een i+posed is the +arriage etween the oended and theoended part.28

>nPeo+le vs.#nante, 29decided Iust a little over a +onth efore 3iranda, the Court si+ilarlheld=

>n this court, after the case had een su+itted, a +otion to dis+iss was ;led onehalf of the appellant predicated on an aidavit eecuted 3anuel Artigas, r., inwhich he pardoned his guilt spouse for her in;delit. But this atte+pted pardoncannot prosper for two reasons. (he second paragraph of article '44 of the !evised#enal Code which is in Euestion reads= :(he oended part cannot institute cri+inalprosecution without including oth the guilt parties, if the are oth alive, nor, in ancase, if he shall have consented or pardoned the oenders.: (his provision +eans thatthe pardon aorded the oenders +ust co+e efore the institution of the cri+inal


22/179

prosecution, and +eans, further, that oth the oenders +ust e pardoned theoended part. (o elucidate further, article 4'& of the old #enal Code provided= :(hehusand +a at an ti+e re+it the penalt i+posed upon his wife. >n such case thepenalt i+posed upon the wife*s para+our shall also e dee+ed to e re+itted.:(hese provisions of the old #enal Code eca+e inoperative after the passage of Act$o. 177', section 2, which had the eect of repealing the sa+e. (he !evised #enalCode thereafter epressl repealed the old #enal Code, and in so doing did not have

the eect of reviving an of its provisions which were not in force. But with theincorporation of the second paragraph of article '44, the pardon given theoended part again constitutes a ar to the prosecution for adulter. nce +ore,however, it +ust e e+phasi$@D fro+ further hearing Cri+inal Case $o. 57-1&55'&9instead, the case shall i++ediatel e scheduled for raJe a+ong the other ranchesof that court for proper disposition.

$o special pronounce+ent on costs.

" !D@!@D.

6elo, Ka+unan, 6artinez, 7uisumbing and Purisima, ., concur.


23/179

)arvasa, *.., too2 no +art.

S-a#a/- O*o*

PUNO,J., separate opinion9

(he facts are critical and need to e focused. #etitioners were charged with rape in Cri+inalCase $o. 1&55' which was raJed to Br. 2& of the !(C of Bian, )aguna. (he charge isprincipall ased on the following aidavit dated ctoer '1, 155% of 3s. uvie-)n#unongaan, a 1%-ear old +inor, viz.=

!@#)L-A>DAF>(

/(G$ "A 3A "A)AL"AL $>)A 3AL! BALA$> A)$(@, H@))A C$C@#C>$,!>CA!D )ACALA$ at A>3@ 3@$DMA

Ako si GF>@-)L$ L. #G$$BALA$, ilipino, walang asawa, 1% ears old, atkasalukuang nasa pangangalaga ng Depart+ent of "ocial Helfare and Develop+ent,

+atapos +akapanu+pa aon sa atas, a nagsasaad=1. Hala pong katotohanan ang lahat nakasaad sa +ga salasa ni 3aor Baani

Alonte at Buenaventura :Hella: Concepcion, ng kanilang +ga testigo na sila !icardo/Ading )acaan Aguilar at ai+e Bagtas 3endo


24/179

ka+i sa aha ng kapatid ni Hawa sa "t. rancis "udivision, Bian, )aguna. (atloka+i sa dance group= ako at ang dalawang lalaki na ipinakilala sa akin ni Hawa= si3elchor at Darius.

7. $agpunta ka+i sa studio sa Delta nung "ept. 11. Bago ka+i +agsaaw, haanginaaos ni Hella ung da+it ko, sinai nia na dapat +analo ka+i dahil si 3aor

Alonte daw ang nag-sponsor ng costu+e na+in. $oon ko lang ito nala+an. indi ka+inanalo sa contest, pero nagkaroon pa rin ka+i ng pre+ong #1,&00.00 na pinaghatian

na+in.6. #agkatapos ng contest, at nung nakapagpalit na ako ng da+it, inaalik ko kaHella ang costu+e ko. "ai nia iuwi ko daw ito dahil gaga+itin ko ito sa 3iss@ducation contest, sa presentation ng +ga candidates. 3ula sa studio, nagpuntaka+ing lahat sa isang kainan sa tapat ng Delta at, pagkatapos na+in ku+ain,hu+iwala ung iang kasa+a na+in.

5. Dinala ako ni Hella sa isang depart+ent store at inili nia ako ng sandals. >nikotnia ako sa lugar na on at inili nia ako ng pagakain. (apos a su+aka ka+i ng uspauwi sa )aguna. $ung nasa us ka+i, niaa ako ni Hella na +agpunta sa aha ni3aor para +agpasala+at ng personal para sa costu+e na+in. #u+aag ako at saiko ka Hella na sunduin nia ako sa aha ng 10=00 a.+. sa susunod na araw, "ept.

12. $akarating ako sa aha ng &=00 p.+. ng araw na on, "ept. 11.10. $ung "ept. 12, hininta ko si Hella ng 10=00 a.+. $ung hindi sia du+atingu+alis ka+ing (ita ko dahil sina+ahan ko sia sa health center. "u+undo pala siHella doon, pero hindi ka+i nagkita kasi saglit lang ka+i doon. Bu+alik sia sa aha,at doon na ka+i nagkita. (apos a u+alis ka+i ni Hella papunta ka 3aor. (u+awidka+i ng kale, at pu+ara ako ng triccle. #ero kahit +ara+i na akong pinara, aaw niHella na su+aka doon. 3aa-+aa, +a tricle na du+ating na hindi na+an pinarani Hella. Basta hu+into na lang sa harap na+in. Doon ka+i su+aka ni Hella. "iHella ang nagturo sa driver kung saan ka+i pupunta. $ag-uusap sila ng driverhaang papunta ka+i ka 3aor.

11. Bu+aa ka+i sa tapat ng aha na ukas ang gate. 3a swi++ing pool sa loo,ala+ na ala+ ni Hella and, pasikot-sikot nang aha9 tulo-tulo sia sa loo at

su+unod na+an ako. Hala ka+ing taong nakita, pero ukas pati ung pintuan ngaha. Dinala ako ni Hella sa sala. $apakaganda ng loo ng aha. 3aroong wallpaper na +a design na leaves and ?owers9 +a carpet sa sahig. 3a +ahaanghagdan patungo sa dalawang pintuan.

12. (inanong ko ka Hella kung nasaan si 3aor. "ai nia a nasa +unisipo daw9darating na daw +aa-+aa. #agkaraan ng +ga 1& +inutes, du+ating si 3aor nanakasaka sa green na kotse. )u+aas sia sa kaliwang pintuan sa harap ng kotse.Hala siang kasa+a.

1'. #u+asok si 3aor sa loo ng aha. $aghuad sia ng sapatos. "ai ni Hella=:3aor, si uvie9 uvie si 3aor.:

14. G+upo si 3aor sa tai ko. 8ina+aan nia ako at sinai nia= :i, >*+ Arthur:

saa hinalikan nia sa ako sa lips. indi ako naka-react dahil nagulat at kinaahanako.

1&. $ag+a+adaling nagpaala+ si Hella. 8inuha ni 3aor ang wallet sa ulsa sa likodng kanang pantalon. Du+ukot sia ng #1,000 na uo. >naot nia ito ka Hella.#atao na ako pero hinawakan ni 3aor ang raso ko. Hag daw akong sasa+a kaHella. "inai ko ka Hella na wag nia akong iiwanan, pero parang wala siangnarinig. Basta tulo-tulo siang u+alis.

1%. $ung, ka+i na lang ni 3aor ang natira, pinaino+ nia ako ng +ineral water.G+ino+ ako dahil nauuhaw ako. $anlao ang paningin ko at nanghina ako.


25/179

17. $awalan ako ng +ala. Ang su+unod ko na lang na natatandaan a nandoon naako sa kwarto. Hala akong da+it. $akadagan si 3aor sa akin. 3a +alaking sala+insa pader. Doon ko nakita na walang kada+it-da+it si 3aor.

16. awak ako ni 3aor sa +agkailang raso. #inipisil nia ito kaa nagkaroon akong pasa sa kaliwang raso /at ito a nawala lang pagkatapos ng tatlong araw.

15. $ara+da+an ko na pilit na pinasok ni 3aor ang ari nia sa aking ari. $asaktan

ako. $ag+akaawa ako. G+iiak ako nung sinai ko sa kana na tigilan nia ako9nasasaktan ako9 +a anak rin siang aae. "ai nia wag daw akong +ainga at i-e+race ko na lang daw sia. )alo akong u+iak dahil nandidiri ako sa kana, at saginagawa nia sa akin. $aghalo ang galit, pandidiri at takot. Hala akong +agawakundi +ag+akaawa. indi ko sia +aitulak dahil nanghihina ako, nakadagan sia saakin, +ataa sia, at hawak-hawak nia ang raso ko. #ero kahit nag+a+akaawa ako,tinulo pa rin nia at pinasok nia ulit ang ari nia sa aking ari.

20. 3aa-+aa a tu+igil sia. (u+ao sia at sai nia= :ang pant +o, nasa tai+o.: 8inuha ko ang pant ko, tu+ao ako at sinuot ko ito. inanap ko ang da+it ko,at nakita ko ang walking shorts, ra at t-shirt ko sa sahig. #inulot ko ito at sinuot ko.aang sinusuot ko, u+iiak pa rin ako. #agkatapos kong +agihis, u+upo ako sa+ahaang upuan sa +a gilid ng ka+a.

21. "a+antala, paEkatapos saihin ni 3aor na nasa tai ko ang pant ko, nagpuntasia sa ano na transparent ang pinto. Hala siang suot pagpunta nia doon.#aglaas nia, nakasuot na sia ng checkered rief na kula lack and white.#u+unta sia sa kailang gilid ng ka+a. 8inuha nia ang da+it nia na nakahanger sapader. "inuot nia ito. )u+aas sia ng kwarto. indi nagtagal a pu+asok sia ulit atsinai nia na nandian na daw ang sundo ko.

22. (u+ao ako. "inai ko na aalis na ako. $ung papunta na ako sa pintuan, lu+apitsi 3aor sa akin. 3a hawak-hawak siang dalawang pirasong #1,000. (iniklop niaito9 inaa nia ung neckline ng t-shirt ko, at pinasok nia ang pera sa aking ra.$agalit ako. 8inuha ko ang pera at tinapon ko ito sa kana. "ai ko hindi akoaarang aae. $agalit sia at pinagantaan ako. "ai nia= :#ag nagsalita ka, ala++o na kung ano ang +angaari sa io.: (iningnan ko sia, at u+alis ako paaa.

2'. 3aroon triccle na nakaaang sa laas. "u+unod si 3aor. )u+apit sia sadriver at inigan nia ito ng #100. (apos a u+alis na ka+i.

24. G+iiak pa rin ako nung nasa triccle. "ai ko sa driver na ginahasa ako ni 3aor."ai nia +asuwerte daw ako at +aaga akong pinauwi dahil ung +ga iang aaedaw na dinadala ka 3aor a pinauwi ng +adaling-araw o hating-gai. 3insandalawa o tatlo pa nga daw ang dinadala doon, at ung ia a naka-unifor+ pa. $aawadaw sia sa akin, kaa +agsu+ong daw ako. $akokonsensia daw sia dahil isa siasa dalawang triccle driver na naghahatid ng +ga aae doon. "ai pa nga nia,aae din daw ang ina nia, kaa din sia nakokonsensia. Dinagdag pa nia na kung+a kasiahan kina 3aor, isang van ng +ga aae ang nadoon. #agdating na+in saaha ng )ola ko, sai nia ago sia u+alis= :)u+aan ka.:

n Dece+er 1', 155%, the private co+plainant thru her counsel, Att. !e+edios C. Balinand Asst. Chief "tate #rosecutor )eonardo uia, r., of the Depart+ent of ustice petitionedthis Court for a change of venue. (he cited as ground the :great danger to the lives of oththe private co+plainant, the i++ediate +e+ers of her fa+il, and their witnesses as theopenl def the principal accused, 3aor Alonte who is acknowledged as a powerful political;gure and al+ost an institution in Bian, )aguna . . .:

n 3arch '1, 1557, the private co+plainant, thru the then "ecretar of ustice, theonorale (eo;sto uingona and Chief "tate #rosecutor ovencio Muno ;led a 3anifestationand 3otion for the earl resolution of the petition for change of venue. (he su+itted the


26/179

aidavits of the private co+plainant, her counsel Att. !e+edios C. Balin, Dolores 3ercado-La+ao, Bienvenido "alandanan and @veln Celso to prove their allegation that the :areeposed to kidnapping, harass+ent, veiled threats and te+pting oers of rie +one R allintended to etract an *aidavit of desistance* fro+ the private co+plainant.: Horth rightlining are the two /2 aidavits of Att. !e+edios C. Balin, counsel for the privateco+plainant, relating the fantastic a+ount of #103 rie +one allegedl oered to her.(he ;rst aidavit dated eruar 24, 1557 states=

>, !e+edios C. Balin, of legal age, ilipino, +arried, with residence at S& Granus"treet, Congressional Avenue "udivision, ue a+ the #rivate #rosecutor in Cri+inal Case $o. 5%-15-B for rape, ;led withthe Bian !(C, Branch 2&, entitled :#eople of the #hilippines vs. Baani Arthur

Alonte, et al.9

2. (hat as #rivate #rosecutor, it is + avowed dut to e faithful to the interests of +client, 3s. uvie-ln #unongaan9

'. (hat on several occasions, > was visited at + ice at the ue eplained to Att. !o+ero that +one does not +atter at all to theCo+plainant and her fa+il even if the have ver +odest +eans9 that the want

Iustice, which +eans a conviction for the charge of rape9

7. (hat > also eplained to Att. !o+ero that the +one he was oering +e was of noconseEuence to +e ecause > had access to the resources of + two /2 daughters,oth of who+ are in the +edical ;eld aroad, and of 3r. ilo+eno Balin, )aor

Attached then assigned in !iadh9

6. (hat > told hi+ that > cannot e te+pted with his oer ecause spiritualconsideration are +ore i+portant to +e than the +aterial. Also, that > usuall handlecases pro ono /at aunado pa where the litigant is in dire need of legal assistanceut cannot aord to pa for the lawer*s fees, as in uvie-ln*s case9

5. (hat > gave Att. !o+ero a cop of the decision of the "upre+e Court pro+ulgatedDece+er 10 155%, entitled :#eople of the #hilippines vs. !oert Cloud: /! $o.115'&5= Cri+. Case $o. -50-12%%0 for parricide involving the death of a 2 1K2 earold o. > wrote on page one of the ero cop of the decision= :(o Att. )eo !o+ero Rso ou will understand,: and to which > aied + signature.

10. (hat > told hi+ eplicitl= :we cannot si+plif the entire proceedings. Lou advise3aor Alonte to surrender /one +itigating circu+stance, plead guilt /another+itigating circu+stance, get a conviction and suer the corresponding penalt.therwise, we have nothing to talk aout.:


27/179

11. (hat > e+phasi assured hi+ that he will not e an eception and that > was Iusttoo us then to eecute an aidavit on the +atter, as > do now9

1'. (hat > have not received other si+ilar oers of valuale +aterial considerationfro+ an other person, whether private part or govern+ent oicial9 owever, > haveeen separatel advised several concerned persons that > was placing + personalsafet at great risk. (he victi+*s fa+il will have great diicult in ;nding anotherlawer to :adopt: the+ in the wa > did, which gives the+ strength to pursue theircase with con;dence and the accused 3aor is aware that > a+ the ostacle to an out-of-court settle+ent of the case. Also, that > had + hands full, as it is, as the ead ofthe C #eople*s Bureau, ousing Develop+ent Center, and "pecial (ask orce an"Euatting and !esettle+ent, and the nu+erous cases ;led +e or against +e,connected with + perfor+ance of oicial duties, and > should not add +ore legalprole+s despite + authorit to engage in private law practice.

14. (hat this aidavit is eecuted in order to put on record the atte+pt to in?uence+e directl, in echange for valuale consideration to drop the rape charge against3aor Baani Arthur Alonte.

eruar 24, 1557, Cit of 3anila.

"D. !@3@D>" C. BA)B>$

!@3@D>" C. BA)B>$

"GB"C!>B@D A$D "H!$ to efore +e this89t1da of 3arch, 1557, 3etro 3anila.

Co++unit (a Certi;cate R &2067''

Date >ssue 2-10-57

ueC

"D. GA$>( ). A!C>A

A((L. GA$>( ). A!C>A

$(A!L #GB)>C

G$(>) Dec. '1, 1557

#(! $o. %'-(-0''4&7

>""G@D A( 3)A. $ 1-2-57

(A$R1%1-&70-61

Doc. $o. 5&09

#age $o. 1709

"eries of 1557.

>n her second Aidavit dated 3arch 2%, 1557, Att. Balin declared in no uncertain languagethat the rie oer for private co+plainant to +ake a desistance was increased fro+#10,000.00 to #20,000.00, viz=

!@#GB)>C (@ #>)>##>$@"


28/179

C>(L 3A$>)A s.s.

!#$!%#&

>, !@3@D>" C. BA)B>$, of legal age, ilipino, +arried, and with postal address at $o. &Granus "treet, Congressional Avenue "udivision ue a+ the #rivate #rosecutor in the rape case ;led the :+inor uvie-)n

#unongaan against 3aor Baani Arthur Alonte of Bian, )aguna.2. (hat earlier, > reported to "ecretar (eo;sto uingona, "tate #rosecutor ovencio !. Muno,

Asst. Chief "tate #rosecutor )eonardo uia, r., and Director ude !o+ano of the Hitness#rotection #rogra+, the instances of sustantial a+ounts a+ounting to several +illions, to+ client, to her relatives, including her +aternal grand+other, and to +self9

'. (hat despite the pulished declaration the Depart+ent of ustice of its deter+inationto prosecute those who oered the ries, new e+issaries of 3aor Alonte persist in +akingoers, as follows=

a. n (hursda, 3arch %, 1557, at aout '=1& o*clock in the afternoon, Att. Dionisio ". Dagaca+e to see +e at + oice at the #eople*s Bureau, ice of the 3aor, of "Euatting casewhich > ;led against his clients9

. (hat after a rief echange on the status of the case, he con;ded to +e his real purpose9

c. (hat he started o saing that he was the legal counsel of the ga+ling lords of3alaon for which he gets a +onthl retainer of ;fteen thousand pesos /#1&,000.00,eclusive of transportation epenses, etc.

d. (he he also stated that the network of ga+ling lords throughout the countr is Euitestrong and uni;ed9

e. (hat > then asked hi+= :Hhat do ou +ean R is Alonte into ga+ling tooT that he is partof the network ou speak ofT:

f. (hat Att. Daga did not repl ut instead said= :the are prepared to doule the oer +adeto ou Att. !o+ero which was pulished in the newspapers: at #10 3illion9

g. (hat > told hi+ that all the +one in the world will not +ake +e change + positionagainst + client*s eecuting a desistance, and that onl Alonte*s voluntar surrender, pleaof guilt in rape, conviction and the i+position of the corresponding penalt will satisf theends of Iustice9

h. (hat > told hi+ that + client*s case is not isolated, there eing ;ve /& other +inorssi+ilarl placed9 and Alonte should e stopped fro+ doing +ore har+9

i. (hat Att. Daga then told +e in #ilipino :if ou do not accede to a desistance, then, thewill e forced to . . .:.

I. (hat ecause he did not co+plete his sentence, > asked hi+ directl= :Hhat do ou +eanTHhat do ou intend to doT And he replied= o on with the case Bu the udge.:

k. (hat unelieving, > reacted, saing9 :ut the have alread done so, udge rancisco atBinan suddenl changed his attitude towards the #rosecution. #erhaps, ou are referring tothe net Iudge when the petition for change of venue is ;nall grantedT:

1. (hat Att. Daga did not repl, and he reiterated that his principals, referring to the+ againas :ga+ling lords,: want a desistance, after which he ecused hi+self and left.

4. (hat > eecute this Aidavit to attest to the truth of the incident with Att. Dionisio ".Daga which occurred in the afternoon of 3arch %, 1557, at + ice, stressing herein +surprise over his daring in +aking et another +onetar oer to +e in echange for +client*s desistance and + feeling of fear for the ;rst ti+e since > started :handling: this


29/179

case against Alonte9

&. (hat despite what > perceived as veiled threats of Att. Daga, > will seek Iustice in ehalf ofuvie-)n #unongaan, with the indispensale initiatives, participation and support of theDepart+ent of ustice under "ecretar (eo;sto uingona.

G!(@! A>A$( "AL@( $AG(.

"D. !@3@D>" C.

BA)B>$A((L. !@3@D>" C.BA)B>$

Aiant

!@#GB)>C (@ #>)>##>$@"

C>(L 3A$>)A ".".

"GB"C!>B@D A$D "H!$ ( B@!@ 3@ this89t1 da of 3arch, 1557.

Co++unit (a Certi;cate R &2067''

Date >ssued 2-10-57

ue, uvie-ln La+ao R #unongaan, 17 ears of age, a resident of $o. & Granus "treet,Congressional Avenue "udivision, ue a+ the Co+plainant in the rape case ;led against 3aor Baani :Arthur: Alonte ofBian, )aguna, with the !(C-Branch 2& of Binan, )aguna9

2. (hat the case has een pending for so+e ti+e, on preli+inar issues, speci;call, /achange of venue, ;led with the "upre+e Court9 / propriet of the appeal to the Court of


30/179

Appeals, and after its denial said court, rought to the ice of the #resident, on theveracit of the ;ndings of the ive-3an >nvestigating #anel of the "tate #rosecutor*s ice,and the "ecretar of ustice and /c a hold-departure order ;led with the Bian Court9

'. (hat the legal process +oves ever so slowl, and +eanwhile, > have alread lost two /2se+esters of + college residence. And when the actual trial is held after all the preli+inarissues are ;nall resolved, > anticipate a still inde;nite suspension of + schooling to attendthe hearings9

4. (hat during the entire period since > ;led the case, + fa+il has lived a +ost anor+allife= + father and +other had to give up their Ios9 + ounger rother, who is in fourthgrade, had to stop his schooling, like +self9

&. (hat > do not la+e anone for the long, Iudicial process9 > si+pl wish to stop and liveelsewhere with + fa+il, where we can start life anew, and live nor+all once again9

%. (hat > pra that > e allowed to withdraw + co+plaint for rape and the other charge forchild ause wherein the ive-3an investigating #enal of the ice of the "tate #rosecutorfound a +rima aciecase although the infor+ation has not een ;led, and that > will not atan ti+e revive this, and related cases or ;le new cases whether, cri+inal, civil andKorad+inistrative here or anwhere in the #hilippines9

7. (hat > likewise reali ai + signature, this 2&th da of une, 1557, in ue" C. BA)B>$A((L. !@3@D>" C. BA)B>$

#rivate #rosecutor

>n the presence of=

"D. #AB) #G$$BALA$

#AB) #G$$BALA$

ather

"D. G)>@ L. #G$$BALA$

G)>@ L. #G$$BALA$3other

"GB"C!>B@D A$D "H!$ to efore +e this 2& the da of une, 1557, in ue


31/179

viousl, the 3otion to !esu+e #roceedings was intended to get the trial court*s approvalfor the dis+issal of the rape case against the petitioners.

>ndeed, three das thereafter or on une 26, 1557, Att. !a+on C. Casino +oved in ehalf ofthe petitioners to dis+iss the petition for change of venue then pending in this Court citingthe aidavit of desistance of the private co+plainant. n August 22, 1557, however, Asst.Chief "tate #rosecutor uia opposed the +otion. e alleged that he has control of theprosecution of the rape case and that he was not aware of the desistance of the private

co+plainant.(he legal +aneuvers to dis+iss the rape case against the petitioners on the asis of thealleged aidavit of desistance of the private co+plainant did not ;nd the favor of this Court.n "epte+er 2, 1557, this Court unani+ousl granted the petition for change of venue,ruling a+ong others, viz=

(hese aidavits give speci;c na+es, dates and +ethods eing used to aort, coercion orcorruption, the prosecution of Cri+inal Case $o. 5%15-B. >t is thus incorrect for oppositors

Alonte and Concepcion to contend that the fear of the petitioner, her private counsel and herwitnesses are too generalindeed, the proailit that in desisting fro+pursuing her co+plaint for rape, petitioner, a +inor, +a have succu+ed to so+e illicit

in?uence and undue pressure. (o prevent possile +iscarriage of Iustice is good ecuse togrant the petition to transfer the venue of Cri+inal Case $o. 5%15-B fro+ Bian, )aguna tothe Cit of 3anila.

>$ F>@H H@!@, the #etition for Change of Fenue fro+ Bian, )aguna to the Cit of3anila is granted. (he @ecutive udge of !(C 3anila is ordered to raJe Cri+. Case $o.5%15-B to an of its ranches. (he Iudge to who+ Cri+. Case $o. 5%15-B shall e raJedshall resolve the petitioner*s 3otion to !esu+e #roceedings ;led in Br. PPF of the !(C ofBian, )aguna and deter+ine the voluntariness and validit of petitioner*s desistance in lightof the opposition of the pulic prosecutor, Asst. Chief "tate #rosecutor )eonardo uia. (heranch clerk of court of Br. PPF of the !(C of Bian, )aguna is ordered to personall deliverto the @ecutive udge of 3anila the co+plete records of Cri+. Case $o. 5%15-B uponreceipt of this !esolution.

n "epte+er 17, 1557, Cri+inal Case $o. 5%15-B /re-docketed the Clerk of Court of3anila as Cri+. Case $o. 57-1&55&& was raJed to Br. &' of the !(C of 3anila, presided the respondent Iudge, the onorale 3ai+o A. "avellano.

n ctoer 5, 1557, the respondent Iudge issued warrants of arrest against the petitionersafter a ;nding of proale cause.

n ctoer 26, 1557, an Ad+inistrative rder of the D was issued e+powering irstAssistant Cit #rosecutor 3ariln !. . Ca+po+anes to prosecute the case at ar. Asst.Chief "tate #rosecutor )eonardo uia, r., who opposed the aidavit of desistance wasrelieved fro+ the case. (he reason given in the Ad+inistrative rder was :. . . in the interestof pulic service.: #rosecutor Ca+po+anes was authori


32/179

of desistance. "he declared that her desistance was her :personal: decision with the consent ofher parents.4"he said she was neither paid nor pressured to desist. n Euestions therespondent Iudge, however, she air+ed the truth of her aidavit dated ctoer '1, 155% thatshe was raped petitioner Alonte. #rosecutor Ca+po+anes +arked and oered her aidavit ofdesistance as @hiit :A:.5"he called on other witnesses to testif on the voluntariness of theaidavit of desistance. (he parents of the co+plainant R #alo"and ulie#unongaan Rdeclared that the did not receive an +onetar consideration for the desistance of their +inordaughter. $either were the pressured to give their consent to the desistance. ourth Asst.

#rovincial #rosecutor Alerto $ofuente averred that the aidavit of desistance was signed andsworn to efore hi+ in the presence of the co+plainant*s parents and private counsel, Att.Balin. e said he eplained the aidavit to the+ and that the co+plainant voluntaril signed thesa+e.8

After their testi+onies, #rosecutor Ca+po+anes +ade the +anifestation that :with thepresentation of our witnesses and the +arking of our docu+ents /sic we are now closing thecase and that we are praing for the dis+issal of the case. 9(he respondent Iudge ruled :thecase is su+itted for decision.:10Att. la+iniano orall praed that petitioner Alonte egranted ail and #rosecutor Ca+po+anes oered no oIection. 11

n $ove+er 10, 1557, petitioner Alonte ;led an Grgent 3otion to Ad+it to Bai1. 12>n herCo++ent, #rosecutor Ca+po+anes agreed and averred, viz.=13

1. (hat she received a cop of the #etition for Bail.

2. (hat on the hearing of the instant case on $ove+er 7, 1557, the #rosecution presentedits witnesses who vehe+entl signi;ed their intention not to further prosecute the case inCourt and there eing no other witnesses to present, the undersigned is left with noalternative ut to seek the dis+issal of the considering that without the testi+on of saidwitnesses this case has nothing to stand on in Court.

'. (hat for the aforestated reason, the #eople interposes no oIection to the granting of Bailand in fact Iustice and eEuit dictate that it Ioins the accused in his praer for the grantingof ail in the a+ount of #1&0,000 /$@ G$D!@D >(L (G"A$D #@"".

4. (hat for the afore+entioned ases, the #eople here +anifests its position that the casee i++ediatel dis+issed or at least the accused e granted ail since the record provesthat there is no +ore evidence to sustain the charge against hi+ such that the granting ofail is proper and in order.

&. (hat as a general rule, a hearing on the petition for ail is necessar to prove that theguilt is not strong ut in this particular case there is no need for hearing since theprosecution cannot prove its case against the accused as it has no other evidence orwitnesses to e presented.

n $ove+er 17, 1557, petitioner Alonte, thru counsel, ;led an Grgent #lea to !esolve the3otion for Bail.14n the sa+e date, #rosecutor Ca+po+anes +anifested that :she dee+s itproper and in accord with Iustice and fair pla to Ioin the aforestated +otion.: 15

n $ove+er 2&, 1557, Dece+er 1, 1557, Dece+er 6, 1557 and Dece+er 10, 1557,petitioner Alonte ;led a "econd, (hird, ourth, and ifth 3otion earl for resolution of hispetition for ail.1">n all these +otions, Att. ortun, counsel of petitioner Alonte, alleged thatcop of the +otion . . . could not e served in person upon the private prosecutor: /Att. Balinin light of the distance etween their oices.1e relied on section 1', !ule 11 of the 1557!ules on Civil #rocedure. (he +otions were not resolved the respondent Iudge.

n Dece+er 16, 1557, the respondent Iudge pro+ulgated his Decision convicting thepetitioners and sentencing the+ to reclusion +er+etua. n whether of the aidavit ofdesistance can e a ground for dis+issal of the rape case against the petitioners, therespondent Iudge held=


33/179

(he ;rst issue to e deter+ined and resolved is the :voluntariness and validit of petitioner*sdesistance in the light of the opposition of the pulic prosecutor Asst. Chief "tate #rosecutor)eonardo uia.: /p. 7, "C !esolution(n Banc, dated "epte+er 2, 155K.79 NRollo, p. 2&'O >tis appropriate to Euote again a portion of the 7-page !esolution (n Bancof the highesttriunal, to wit9 :>ndeed, the proailit /eists that in desisting fro+ pursuing herco+plaint for rape, petitioner, a +inor, +a have succu+ed to so+e illicit in?uence andundue pressure. (o prevent possile +iscarriage of Iustice is a good ecuse to grant the

petition for change of venue . . .: /Rollo, p. 202.(he Court shall narrate the facts leading to the desistance of the private co+plainant whichare e+odied in the two /2 aidavits of her lawer, Att. !e+edios C. Balin, with who+ theprivate co+plainant lives at $o. & Granus "t., Congressional Avenue "udivision, uet clearl appears in the aoveEuoted aidavit that repeated rie oers fro+ a lawerrepresenting the accused 3aor Baani Arthur Alonte in the total a+ount of (en 3illion

#esos /#10,000,000.00 were +ade to Att. Balin, allocated as follows= /1 ive 3illion#esos /&,000,000.00 for the private co+plainant uvie-ln L. #unongaan9 /2 (hree 3illion#esos /#',000,000.00 for her /Att. Balin9 and /' (wo 3illion #esos /#2,000,000.00 forthe +ediator.

>n the suseEuent aidavit, dated 3arch 2%, 1557, eecuted Att. !e+edios C. Balin/@h. ,Rollo, pp. 224-22& she narrated in detail the continuing veiled threats and the verte+pting and escalating oer to increase the a+ount of the rie +one oered to her andthe private co+plainant after her ;rst aidavit, douling the ;rst oer of (en 3illion#esos /#10,000,000.00 to (went 3illion #esos /#20,000,000.00, in echange for herclient*s desistance, ut also acco+panied with veiled threats, if refused. "aid aidavit isEuoted, as follows=

(he Court underscores paragraphs /, /c, /d, /e, /f, /g, /h, /i, /I, /k, and /l,particularl paragraphs /i, /I and speciall paragraph /k of the aoveEuoted aidavit of

Att. Balin which insinuates that the presiding udge of the !(C Bian, )aguna, had alreadeen ought, and that accused Alonte thru his nu+erous e+issaries, will also u or riethe :the net Iudge when the petition for change of venue is ;nall granted.: >n view of thisinsinuation, the undersigned presiding udge is ver careful in deciding this case, lest he eplaced under suspicion that he is also receiving lood +one that continues to ?ow. (heCourt wants to have internal peace R the peace which +one cannot u. 3one is the rootof all evil. (he ol ol "criptures also re+ind Iudges and Iurists= :Lou shall not actdishonestl in rendering Iudg+ent. "how neither partialit to the weak nor deterrence to the+ight, ut Iudge our fellow +en Iustl,: /)eviticus 15=1&. (he "criptures further sa=:Hhat does it pro;t a +an if he gains the whole world ut suers the loss of his soulT: /3t.

1%=2% and :$o one can serve two /2 +asters. . . Lou cannot serve od and +a++on.: /3t.%=24, )uke 1%=1'. >t is not out of place to Euote the ol "criptures ecause the onorale"upre+e Court has een doing so in its Euest for truth and Iustice. (hus,Peo+le vs. arcia,205 "C!A 1%4, 174, the highest triunal, in ruling that the ?ight of an accused is evidence ofguilt on his part, Euoted the old (esta+ent, as follows=

>t was written in the literature of ld (esta+ent several centuries ago that=

(he wicked +an ?eeth though no +an pursueth, ut the righteous are as oldas a lion.


34/179

/#rovers, 26=1

"useEuentl, on une 2&, 1557, the private co+plainant and her lawer suddenlso+ersaulted or changed their co++on positions or attitudes in the prosecution of this case.@videntl, veiled threats and +one had replaced the :spiritual consideration: which earlier,to the+ were :+ore i+portant than the +aterial: to Euote Att. Balin in her ;rst aidavit/Rollo, p. 217, and her repl to Att. Dionisio ". Daga that :all the +one in the world willnot +ake +e change + position against + client*s eecuting a desistance, and that onl

Alonte*s voluntar surrender, plea of guilt to rape, conviction and the i+position of thecorresponding penalt will satisf the ends of Iustice.

n une 2%, 1557, the private co+plainant thru her counsel, Att. !e+edios C. Balin, ;led a3otion to !esu+e #roceedings, dated une 2&, 1557, /Rollo, pp. 2'6-244 praing thereinthat the !(C, Bian, )aguna, where this case was still pending, vacate its rder to "uspendearings, to enale it to act on all incidents including private Co+plainant*s Aidavit ofDesistance attached thereto. /Rollo, pp. 240-241 which aidavit of desistance is Euotedhereunder as follows=

(his Court, as the trier of facts, is tasked the highest triunal to ;nd out if the privateco+plainant, a +inor :+a have succu+ed to so+e illicit in?uence and undue pressure, in

order to prevent a possile +iscarriage of Iustice.: @videntl, the veiled threats andacceptance of the rie +one in allocated a+ounts which was suseEuentl raised to theirresistile a+ount of at least #20,000,000.00, co+pelled, i+pelled andKor te+pted theprivate co+plainant her father #alo #unongaan and her +other ulie L. #unongaan,and her lawer and private prosecutor Att. !e+edios C. Balin, who did not appear in Courton $ove+er 7, 1557, despite notice, to eecute the said :Aidavit of Desistance: which wasthe ulti+ate goal of the accused. >t is ver ovious that the private co+plainant a +inor,:succu+ed to so+e illicit in?uence and undue pressure,: to orrow the language of theonorale "upre+e Court @n Banc. >t would e the height of etre+e naivete or gulliilitfor an nor+al individual to conclude otherwise. (he Court does not elieve that the privateco+plainant, her lawer, and her parents charged ut in echange for a plea of guilt thecharge is reduced to ho+icide and the accused is allowed to clai+ a nu+er of +itigating

circu+stances. >t is not unco++on for estafa, liel, phsical inIuries and even ho+icidecases to e dis+issed ecause the co+plainant has lost interest or alleged that theco+plaint was ;led as a result of a +isunderstanding. A nu+er of ea+ples can e givenand the can ;ll a ook.:

Again, inPeo+le vs.(vangelista, )-4&065, April 27, 1562, 11' "C!A 71', 720, the "upre+eCourt further declared=

>t +a e noted that the cri+es in Euestion /forcile aduction with rape are a+ong thoseenu+erated in Article '44 of the !evised #enal Code, which cri+es cannot e prosecuted deo3icio. >n other words, the cri+es of aduction and rape are in the nature of private oense,inas+uch as the law has reposed :the right to institute such proceedings eclusivel andsuccessivel in the oended person, her parents, grandparents or guardian: . . . Accordingl,if after ;ling the case at face at ar decided that she was unale to face the scandal of pulic

trial, or, if for so+e private reason she preferred to suer the outraged in silence, then,corollar to her right institute the proceedings, s1e s1ould 1ave been allo4ed to 4it1dra41er com+laint and desist rom +rosecuting t1e case /@+phasis supplied.

#etitioner Concepcion did not su+it an +otion for reconsideration. Hithout waiting for theresolution of his +otion for reconsideration, petitioner Alonte repaired to this Court. "o didpetitioner Concepcion.

Hithout dout, the petitions at ar raise two /2 fulcru+ issues= /1 the correctness of theruling of the respondent Iudge that the desistance of the co+plainant is not a ground todis+iss the rape charge against the petitioners, and /2 the invalidit of petitioners*


35/179

conviction on the ground of denial of due process.

> agree with the learned disEuisition of 3r. ustice Fitug that we should set aside theconviction of the petitioners for patent violation of their right to due process of law. > writethis "eparate pinion to highlight the erroneousness of the shocking stance of the "tate#rosecutor that the rape charge should e dis+issed in view of the desistance of the privateco+plainant. But our ruling giving no eect on the aidavit of desistance should not asedon the reason that it was procured threat or inti+idation or an pa+ent of +one as the

respondent Iudge opined in his Decision. (he respondent Iudge arrived at this conclusion onthe asis of the aidavits of Att. Balin, the counsel of the private co+plainant. (his iserroneous for Att. Balin was never called to the witness stand to testif on the truth of heraidavits. er aidavits therefore are hearsa evidence and should not have een reliedupon the respondent Iudge. (he aidavit of desistance cannot aort the rape chargeagainst the petitioners on the si+ple ground that it did not state that the privateco+plainant-aiant was not raped petitioner Alonte. >n truth, the private co+plainantair+ed her earlier !epl-Aidavit where she narrated in detail how petitioner Alonte rapedher. 3oreover, the rape charge has een ;led in Court and it is not an+ore the asoluteprivilege of the ca+plainant to desist fro+ continuing with the case.

(his separate opinion uneEuivocal addresses the issue of whether the desistance of thevicti+ can stop the further prosecution of the petitioners.

>

>n #hilippine Iurisprudence, desistance has een eEuated with recantation or retraction.

(o :recant: +eans to :withdraw or repudiate for+all and pulicl9:18:to renounce orwithdraw prior state+ent.:19 (o :retract: +eans to :take ack9: :to retract an oer is towithdraw it efore acceptance.:20A recantation usuall applies to a co+plainant or witness,either for the prosecution or the defense, who has previousl given an etra-Iudicialstate+ent21or testi+on in court.22!epudiation +a e +ade in writing, i.e., swornstate+ent,23or testifing on the witness stand.24

3ere retraction a witness or co+plainant of his or her testi+on does not necessarilvitiate the original testi+on or state+ent, if credile.25(he general rule is that courts lookwith disfavor upon retractions of testi+onies previousl given in court. 2"(his rule applies tocri+es,2oenses28as well as to ad+inistrative oenses.29(he reason is ecause aidavits ofretraction can easil e secured fro+ poor and ignorant witnesses, usuall through inti+idationor for +onetar consideration.303oreover, there is alwas the proailit that the will later erepudiated31and there would never e an end to cri+inal litigation. 32>t would also e adangerous rule for courts to reIect testi+onies sole+nl taken efore courts of Iustice si+plecause the witnesses who had given the+ later on changed their +inds for one reason oranother. (his would +ake sole+n trials a +ocker and place the investigation of the truth at the+erc of unscrupulous witnesses.33

(he general rule notwithstanding, the aidavit should not e pere+ptoril dis+issed as auseless scrap of paper. (here are instances when a recantation +a create serious douts asto the guilt of the accused.34A retracted state+ent or testi+on +ust e suIect to scrupulousea+ination. (he previous state+ent or testi+on and the suseEuent one +ust e carefull

co+pared and the circu+stances under which each was given and the reasons and +otives forthe change carefull scrutinin short, onl where thereeists special circu+stances in the case which when coupled with the retraction raise douts asto the truth of the testi+on or state+ent given, can a retraction e considered and upheld. 3"

A surve of our Iurisprudence reveals that the sa+e rule has een applied to aidavits ofdesistance.3An aidavit of desistance is understood to e a sworn state+ent eecuted aco+plainant in a cri+inal or ad+inistrative case that he or she is discontinuing the action ;ledupon his or her co+plaint for whatever reason he or she +a cite. (he court attaches nopersuasive value to a desistance especiall when eecuted as an afterthought.38owever, a in


36/179

retractions, an aidavit of desistance calls for a reea+ination of the records of the case.39

>n private cri+es, an aidavit of desistance ;led a private co+plainant is also frownedupon the courts. Although such aidavit +a deserve a second look at the case, there ishardl an instance when this Court upheld it in private cri+es and dis+issed the case on thesole asis thereof. >ndeed, a case is not dis+issed upon +ere aidavit of desistance of theco+plainant, particularl where there eist special circu+stances that raise douts as to thereliailit of the aidavit.40

Gsuall in private cri+es, an aidavit of desistance is eecuted the private co+plainantafter pardoning and forgiving the oender. >n this instance, the court treats the aidavit asan epress pardon.41>t does not i+so acto dis+iss the case ut deter+ines the ti+eliness and

validit thereof.

#rivate cri+es are cri+es against chastit such as adulter and concuinage, seduction,aduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness. (heir institution, prosecution and etinction aregoverned Article '44 of the !evised #enal Code, viz=

Art. '44.Prosecution o t1e crimes o adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, ra+e andacts o lasciviousness. R (he cri+es of adulter and concuinage shall not e prosecutedecept upon a co+plaint ;led the oended spouse.

(he oended part cannot institute cri+inal prosecution without including oth the guiltparties, if the are oth alive, nor in an case, if he shall have consented or pardoned theoenders.

(he oenses of seduction, aduction, rape, acts of lasciviousness, shall not e prosecutedecept upon a co+plaint ;led the oended part or her parents, grand parents, orguardian, nor in an case, the oender has een epressl pardoned the aove-na+edpersons, as the case +a e.

>n cases of seduction, aduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the +arriage of theoender with the oended part shall etinguish the cri+inal action or re+it the penaltalread i+posed upon hi+. (he provisions of this paragraph shall also e applicale to theco-principals, acco+plices and accessories after the fact of the aove-+entioned cri+es.

#rivate cri+es cannot e prosecuted ecept upon co+plaint ;led the oended part. >nadulter and concuinage, the oended part +ust i+plead oth the guilt parties and +ustnot have consented or pardoned the oenders. >n seduction, aduction, rape and acts oflasciviousness, the co+plaint +ust e ;led the oended part or her parents,grandparents or guardian. (he co+plainant +ust not have epressl pardoned the oender.

Article '44 also provides for the etinction of cri+inal liailit in private cri+es. >t +entionstwo +odes= pardon and +arriage, which when validl and ti+el +ade, result in the totaletinction of cri+inal liailit of the oender.42(he pardon in private cri+es +ust e +adeefore the institution of the cri+inal action.43>n adulter and concuinage, the pardon +a eepress or i+plied while in seduction, aduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness, the pardon+ust e epress. >n all cases, the pardon +ust co+e prior to the institution of the cri+inal action.

After the case has een ;led in court, an pardon +ade the private co+plainant, whether sworn state+ent or on the witness stand, cannot etinguish cri+inal liailit. (he onl act thatetinguishes the penal action and the penalt that +a have een i+posed is the +arriageetween the oender and the oended part.44

As this Court declared in the case of$onio-&eves v. %amenta, r.=45

(he ter+ :private cri+es: in reference to felonies which cannot e prosecuted ecept uponco+plaint ;led the aggrieved part, is +isleading. ar fro+ what it i+plies, it is not onl theaggrieved part who is oended in such cri+es ut also the "tate. @ver violation of penal lawsresults in the disturance of pulic order and safet which the "tate is co++itted to uphold andprotect. >f the law i+poses the condition that private cri+es like adulter shall not e prosecutedecept upon co+plaint ;led the oended part, it is, as herein pointed earlier :out of


37/179

consideration for the aggrieved part who +ight prefer to suer the outrage in silence ratherthan go through the scandal of a pulic trial.: nce a co+plaint is ;led, the will of the oendedpart is ascertained and the action p

Documents

Crim Pro Cases Atty. Dimayuga