SALONGA vs.

CRUZ PANO
JOVITO R. SALONGA, petitioner
HON. ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal Branch XVIII
(Quezon City), Respondent
GUTIEREZ JR., J.
Group 3

Facts:
1. The petitioner invokes the constitutionally protected right to life and liberty guaranteed by the due
process clause, alleging that no prima facie case has been established to warrant the filing of an
information for subversion against him. Petitioner asks this Court to prohibit and prevent the
respondents from using the iron arm of the law to harass, oppress, and persecute him, a member of
the democratic opposition in the Philippines.
2. Background Facts: This case was being decided in the context of a series of bombings that
occurred in the Metro Manila area between the months of August, September, and October. A
certain Victor Lovely was hospitalized when he nearly killed himself setting off a bomb in his
room at the YMCA building in Manila. In his possession, the police and military found pictures
taken at the birthday party of former Congressman Raul Daza’s in his Los Angeles residence.
Petitioner Salonga were among the people captured in the group pictures. Lovely was then taken
out of intensive care and was transferred to the office of Col. Madella where was held
incommunicado for some time.
3. From September-October of the same year, more bombs would go off around the area.
4. Finally, on October 19, minutes after the President had finished delivering his speech before the
International Conference of American Society, a small bomb exploded. This proved to be the final
straw as within the next 24-hours arrest, search, and seizure orders were issued against persons
who were apparently implicated by Lovely one of whom was Petitioner Salonga; who was
arrested in his hospital room while being treated for his chronic ailment of bronchial asthma.
5. Salonga was accused as leader of subversive organizations including the “Movement for
Free Philippines” because of two reasons:
a. His house was used as a “contactpoint” where the subversive group allegedly met;
b. Because he “mentioned some kind of violent struggle in the Philippines being most
likely should reforms be not instituted by President Marcos immediately.”
6. Petitioner filed motion to dismiss the charges against him for failure of prosecution to establish a
prima facie case against him. This was denied by respondent judge, the resolution of which is now
the subject of this current petition.
Issue:
WoN prosecution was able to establish prima facie case against the petitioner. [No]

Ratio:
After a painstaking review of the records, this Court finds the Evidence offered by the prosecution
utterly insufficient to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner. We grant the petition.
1. Petitioner’s constitutional right to free speech, and freedom from arbitrary arrest, punishment,
and unwarranted prosecution applies to the case.
Free Speech
1. To the first right of free speech, the court established the doctrine in saying that “No man deserves
punishment for his thought; and quoted the opinion of the late Justice Oliver Holmes in US v
Schwimmer, which reads as follows:
 a. “If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attatchment
than any other it is the principle of free thought not free thought for those who agree with
us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”
2. The Court interpreted this to mean that political discussion, even among those opposed to the
present administration is within the protective clause of freedom of speech and expression.
The only time that it would constituted prima facie evidence of membership is such discussion
amounts to “Conferring with officers or other members of such association or organization in
fuherance of any plan or enterprise thereof.”
3. In this case at hand, no evidence was properly established to link petitioner and any subversive
organization.
4. Although Lovely testified that political discussion took place at Daza’s birthday party, no proof
was adduced that such discussion was in furtherance of plans to overthrow the government.
Right to Freedom From Arbitrary Arrest, Punishment, and Unwarranted Prosecution
1. The court laid down the general rule as to the right of freedom from arbitrary arrest,
punishment, and unwarranted prosecution, established in People vs. Dayad, when it stated:
a. “Evidence must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must be
credible in itself such as the common experience and observation of mankind can
approve as probably under the circumstances.”
2. In the case at hand, the prosecution was not able to come up with a single iota of evidence which
could positively link the petitioner to any proscribed activities of the Movement for Free
Philippines.
3. Lovely already testified that during the party of Daza no political action was taken but only
political discussion.
4. The “contact point” theory (House meeting) is too tenuous a basis to conclude that Salonga was a
leader or mastermind as to indict a person simply because some plotters masquerading as visitors
have somehow met in his house or office would be to establish a dangerous precedent. The right
of citizens to be secure against abuse of govenemntal processes in criminal prosecution would be
seriously undermined.

However insofar as the absence of prima facie case to warrant filing of subversion charges is
concerned, this decision is rendered moot and academic by action of prosecution.

1. They have taken the initiative of dropping the charges against the petitioner. We reiterate the
rule however, that this Court will not validate the filing of an information based on the kind of
evidence against the petitioner found in the records.
WF, the petition is dismissed for having become moot and academic.