G.R. No. 59524 - Salonga vs. Pano

The respondents argue that the denial of a motion to quash or dismiss is an interlocutory matter that cannot be challenged by certiorari.
They assert that the issue of dismissal will be revisited during the trial, providing the movant with a sufficient remedy in the ordinary course of law.
However, the Court recognizes exceptions to this rule, particularly when there is a failure to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner.
The Court finds that the initial violation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights and the extensive negative publicity justify the consideration of the petition.

The Court emphasizes the necessity of respecting a citizen's right to be free from arbitrary prosecution.
The inclusion of the petitioner in a trial involving numerous defendants, without any evidence linking him to the alleged conspiracy, undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
"Prima facie evidence" is defined as evidence sufficient to support a proposition unless contradicted, which must counterbalance the presumption of innocence.

Col. Diego's evidence against the petitioner relies heavily on hearsay, specifically statements from Lovely and group photographs.
The Court notes that hearsay lacks probative value as the affiant cannot be cross-examined.
The inquest judge should have limited the investigation to Lovely, the sole witness implicating the petitioner.

The Court critiques the "contact point" theory, which suggests that mere meetings at the petitioner’s residence imply involvement in subversive activities.
The absence of direct evidence linking the petitioner to acts of violence or terrorism is acknowledged.
Indicting someone based solely on associations would set a perilous precedent, infringing on citizens' rights against governmental abuse.

The testimony of Victor Lovely is riddled with inconsistencies, particularly regarding the ability to whisper to the petitioner, who is nearly deaf.
Lovely's claims about meeting the petitioner at a party are contradicted by the petitioner’s timeline of events.
The petitioner denies any acquaintance with Lovely, further undermining the credibility of the accusations.

The presence of the petitioner in a group photograph does not constitute evidence of conspiracy.
The Court highlights that political figures often interact with various individuals, and such associations do not imply complicity in criminal activities.
Stronger evidence is required for an indictment, and the prosecution fails to meet this standard.

The petitioner’s alleged opinions regarding potential violence in the Philippines are framed as legitimate expressions of thought.
The Court asserts that no individual should be punished for their thoughts, referencing the principle of free thought.
Historical legal precedents emphasize the importance of protecting even unpopular opinions under constitutional guarantees.

Freedom of expression is deemed a "preferred" right, particularly in political discourse.
The Court stresses that political discussions cannot serve as grounds for criminal indictments.
The alleged remarks about violent struggle do not constitute a threat or incitement to violence.

Lovely’s statements regarding his bombing mission negate any politically motivated assignment.
His testimony indicates that he did not intend to implicate the petitioner in any government-related bombing.
The prosecution's adoption of Lovely as a witness binds them to his disclaimers, which should have been considered by the court.

Evidence must not only come from credible witnesses but also be credible in itself.
The prosecution fails to present a credible narrative linking the petitioner to the bombings, relying instead on hearsay and unverified statements.

The preliminary investigation aims to protect the innocent from unjust prosecution and public accusation.
It is a constitutional right, and failure to conduct it properly violates due process.
The judge must dismiss cases lacking sufficient evidence to...continue reading