Title
Alonte vs. Savellano, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 131652
Decision Date
Mar 9, 1998
A rape case against a mayor and accomplice proceeded despite the complainant's voluntary desistance, leading to a conviction overturned by the Supreme Court due to due process violations and lack of a proper trial.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 131652)

Filing and Nature of the Information

An information for rape was filed December 5, 1996 in RTC Biñan, Laguna. It alleged that Mayor Alonte drugged and raped Punongbayan, and that Concepcion facilitated by bringing her to Alonte’s rest house for ₱1,000.

Petition for Change of Venue

Punongbayan petitioned December 13, 1996 to transfer trial to Manila, citing threats, harassment, and offers of bribe to abort the prosecution. While pending, she executed (June 25, 1997) an affidavit of desistance withdrawing her complaint to avoid further personal and family hardship.

State Prosecutor’s Opposition to Desistance

On June 28, 1997, counsel for petitioners moved to dismiss the venue petition as moot due to desistance. Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Guiyab opposed, asserting prosecutorial control over criminal actions and that private desistance had no legal effect.

Supreme Court Resolution Granting Venue Transfer

On September 2, 1997 the Supreme Court granted the venue change, acknowledging credible affidavits of intimidation and corruption attempts and ordering the new trial judge to determine the voluntariness and validity of Punongbayan’s desistance affidavit.

Trial Court Proceedings in Manila

After arraignment October 7, 1997 (both pleading not guilty, waiving pre‐trial), the trial judge heard testimony solely on the affidavit of desistance. Punongbayan, her parents, and a prosecutor‐witness confirmed her voluntary withdrawal. The State moved to dismiss and join petitioners in praying for bail.

Failure to Conduct Full Merits Trial or Resolve Bail

Between November and December 1997 petitioners repeatedly sought resolution of bail motions (with prosecutor’s concurrence), but the judge neither resolved bail nor conducted a merits trial in conformity with the prescribed order of trial under Rule 119.

Decision and Sentencing

On December 18, 1997 the court promulgated a decision (in absentia) finding both petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua (20 years + 1 day to 40 years). Bail posted by Concepcion was cancelled.

Petition for Certiorari and Main Grounds

Petitioners filed before the Supreme Court:

  1. Grave abuse of discretion and denial of due process for convicting without a proper trial on the merits.
  2. Violation of Rules 119–120 and the Revised Rules on Evidence by using and relying on affidavits not formally marked or cross‐examined.
  3. Erroneous dismissal of the legal effect of the complainant’s affidavit of desistance.

Supreme Court’s Due Process Analysis

The Court held that due process under the 1987 Constitution (Art. III, Secs. 1–2) requires strict adherence to (a) court’s jurisdiction; (b) proper trial order (Rule 119); (c) accused’s opportunity to be heard, confront witnesses, present evidence; and (d) formal admission of evidence. The proceedings below deviated seriously: no defense evidence was heard, no rebuttal, affidavits were not properly offered, and no chance to cross‐examine.

Treatment of Affidavit of Desistance in Private Crimes

Under Article 344 RPC, private crimes (including rape) require complaint by the offended party but do not recognize subsequent desistance as a ground for dismissal once the case is instituted. A desistance affidavit does not constitute a timely express pardon (which must predate filin




...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.