Case Summary (G.R. No. 59524)
Factual Background: Series of Bombings and Alleged Link to Salonga
From August to October 1980, multiple bombings in Metro Manila injured and killed civilians. After an explosion in his YMCA room, Lovely was detained, charged with subversion and explosives offenses, and offered to be a state witness. He implicated Salonga by claiming his Greenhills residence served as a “contact point” for transfer of bomb-making materials. Group photos from a Los Angeles birthday party also linked Salonga and Lovely.
Investigation, Arrest, and Preliminary Proceedings
Lovely’s brother publicly claimed Victor had twice visited Salonga’s home. Military and police secured ASSOs (arrest, search, seizure orders) against Salonga. He was arrested in a hospital on October 21, 1980, held incommunicado until this Court ordered access by counsel, transferred to Fort Bonifacio, then released to house arrest. No formal charges or investigation occurred until martial law’s lift in January 1981. On February 24, 1981, the City Fiscal filed an anti-subversion complaint encompassing Salonga among 40 accused.
Procedural History and Petition for Certiorari
Following a preliminary investigation marked by restricted discovery and conflicting notice of charges, the respondent judge denied Salonga’s motion to dismiss for lack of prima facie case (Dec. 2, 1981) and ordered an information filed (Jan. 4, 1982). Salonga filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to restrain further prosecution, arguing absolute failure to establish probable cause and underscoring harassment of a democratic opposition leader.
Prima Facie Evidence Standard and Due Process
Under constitutional due process, an information may issue only if evidence, unexplained or uncontradicted, suffices to overcome the presumption of innocence. Extraordinary remedies like certiorari are warranted when prosecution is clearly vexatious or rights are flagrantly violated, as recognized in Yap v. Lutero and Mead v. Angel.
Hearsay Reliance and Insufficiency of Evidence
Prosecution relied chiefly on Col. Diego’s hearsay report of Lovely’s statements and two group photographs. Diego’s testimony lacked personal knowledge and was based entirely on Lovely’s unverified declarations. Hearsay has no probative value in establishing prima facie case. Ambassador Fernandez offered no testimony linking Salonga to any subversive organization.
Inconsistencies in Lovely’s Testimony
Lovely’s sworn statements and later media interviews diverged on crucial facts: number of Salonga visits, who delivered the attache case, and his own bombing intent (targeting a private family, not the government). On cross-examination he denied intending violence against the State and disclaimed any effort to implicate Salonga. These inconsistencies fatally undermine the prosecution’s sole witness.
Political Discussion Versus Subversive Conspiracy
Salonga’s alleged remark about “violent struggle” absent reforms, and mere political conversation at a birthday party, constitute protected freedom of thought and expression under both the 1973 Constitution and settled U.S. precedents (Schwimmer, Watts, Brandenburg). Discussion does not equate to “conferring in furtherance of a subversive plan” as required for prima facie evidence under PD 885, §3(6).
Role of Preliminary Investigation in S
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 59524)
Facts of the Case
- A series of bombings rocked Metro Manila in August, September and October 1980, including explosions at the YMCA building and major hotels.
- Victor Burns Lovely, Jr., Philippine-born American citizen, was injured in a bomb blast on September 6, 1980; police found photographs of petitioner and guests at former Congressman Raul Daza’s Los Angeles birthday party.
- Lovely and his brothers were charged with subversion, illegal possession of explosives, and damage to property; Lovely was detained under the authority of Col. Roman P. Madella and Gen. Fabian Ver.
- Romeo Lovely publicly testified that he drove Victor Lovely to petitioner Salonga’s Greenhills residence on August 20 and August 31, 1980, but did not see any attaché case or explosives.
- On October 21, 1980, military officers arrested petitioner Salonga in his Manila Medical Center hospital room without specifying charges; counsel was initially barred from visiting until this Court’s intervention in Ordonez v. Ver.
- Petitioner was moved to an isolation cell at Fort Bonifacio, then released for humanitarian reasons on November 27, 1980, under house arrest with no formal investigation or charge copies provided.
- A “Notice of Preliminary Investigation” was issued December 10, 1980, in People v. Benigno Aquino, Jr., et al., naming Salonga among the accused, but supporting evidence was never furnished.
- On February 24, 1981, the City Fiscal filed a complaint against Salonga for violations of the Anti-Subversion Laws and related statutes; inquest proceedings and preliminary investigation were set for March 1981.
- Petitioner Salonga, a Plaza Miranda bombing survivor with severe physical disabilities, left the country in March 1981 for medical treatment; his counsel received an amended complaint dated March 12, 1981.
- Prosecution witnesses before the inquest court included Ambassador Armando Fernandez, Col. Balbino Diego, and Victor Lovely; the prosecution adopted Lovely as its primary witness.
- On October 15, 1981, petitioner moved to dismiss for lack of prima facie case; the inquest judge denied the motion on December 2, 1981 and ordered filing of information on January 4, 1982.
Procedural History
- Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before this Court challenging the interlocutory resolutions of December 2, 1981 and January 4, 1982.
- This Court considered whether certiorari lies to test an interlocutory order denying dismissal of subversion charges.
- Before final resolution, on January 18, 1985, the tria