G.R. No.

L-59524
Salonga vs. Cruz-Pao
Ponente: Gutierrez, Jr., J.
Facts:
Petitioner Jovito Salonga was charged with subversion in violation of R.A. 1700 as amended by P.D.
885, Batas Pambansa Blg. 31 and P.D. 1736 in relation to the series of bombings which occurred in Metro
Manila during the months of August, September and October of 1980. The events which led to the
petitioners charge are the following:
1)
2)
3)
4)

5)

A bomb exploded at the YMCA building on September 6, 1980 specifically in the room of Victor Burns
Lovely, Jr., a Phil. born L.A. citizen. Police and military authorities found in Lovelys room several pictures
taken during Cong. Raul Dazas birthday party. Included in the pictures are the petitioner and Victor Lovely.
Victor Lovely was put in custody of Col. Ramon Mandella under the direction of Gen. Fabian Ver.
Romeo was interviewed in the Presidents television radio press conference on September 20, 1980. Romeo
stated that Victor visited the petitioner twice. The day after the interview, newspapers had identical headlines
linking the petitioner to the bombings.
A bombing occurred at the PICC after the President finished his speech for the International Conference of
the American Society of Travel Agents on October 19, 1980. Within 24 hours, arrest, search and seizure
orders (ASSOs) were issued against those implicated by Victor including the petitioner. Victor volunteered to
tell everything he knew about the bombings as a state witness.
On October 21, 1980, the petitioner was placed under hospital arrest while he was confined at the Manila
Medical Center. He was not allowed to consult his lawyer until the court ordered his right to legal counsel.
He was then transferred to an isolation room at Fort Bonifacio on November 2, 1980 and was subsequently
placed under house arrest on November 27, 1980. He stated that he did not receive any copy of the
charge/s against him or any supporting evidences until the martial law was lifted. Only on February 24, 1981
did the City Fiscal file a complaint against him which was then amended on March 12, 1981.

The petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the charges for failure of the prosecution to establish a prima
facie case against him. However, the respondent judge denied the motion and issued a resolution
ordering the filing of information for violation of the Revised Anti-Subversion Act. This was the subject of
the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner to the Supreme Court.
Doctrine: Merits for Judicial Review; Establishing a Prima Facie Case; Symbolic Judicial Function 1
Issue/s:
1) Whether or not the denial of the petitioners motion to dismiss by the respondent judge merits a
petition for certiorari or judicial review
2) Whether or not a prima facie case was established by the prosecution against the petitioner
Held/Ratio Decidendi:
1) Yes. While there is a general rule that the denial of motion to dismiss cannot be questioned by
certiorari, as stated in Mead v. Angel (115 SCRA 256), a petition for certiorari is granted in the
interest of more enlightened and substantial justice. In light of the current case, the court affirms
the importance of the citizens right to be free not only from arbitrary arrest and punishment but
also from unwarranted and vexatious prosecution. Thus, the court grants the petition for certiorari
because there is an initial disregard to the petitioners constitutional right to be informed of the
charges against him and the right to legal counsel.
2) No. Not only does the witnesses of the prosecution used hearsay evidences but also Victor
Lovelys testimony before the court contained inconsistencies. Even if the prosecution cites the
petitioners house as contact point for subversive movements the conclusion that the petitioner is
a leader of a subversive organization is still not established. The same is true of the petitioners
thoughts regarding violent struggles for reforms because it merely shows the petitioners exercise
of his freedom of thought and expression. Moreover, the pictures where Victor Lovely and the
petitioner appeared do not say anything about the petitioners involvement in the bombings. Thus,
without credible evidence of the petitioners role in the bombings, the prosecution has failed to
establish a iprima facie case against the petitioner.

i1

On January 18, 1985, the prosecution has withdrawn their charge against the petitioner rendering the case moot and academic. However,
the court still exercised its symbolic judicial function. The symbolic judicial function of the court is to educate the bench and the bar on the
extent of protection given by constitutional guarantees even if the case has been rendered moot and academic.