G.R. No. L-23761 September 4, 1979
JESUS LAVA, petitioner, vs. JESUS DE VEYRA, as Presiding Judge of Branch XIV of the Court of First Instance of Manila; FLORENTINO N. VILLANUEVA, as Second Assistant City Fiscal of Manila; BUENAVENTURA FERNANDEZ, as Special Prosecutor, Philippine Constabulary, Camp Crame, Quezon City; SANTIAGO TAN, as Special Prosecutor, Philippine Constabulary, Camp Crame, Quezon City; PEDRO S. DAVID, as Assistant Fiscal of Manila, City Hall, Manila; and ERNESTO R. OXCIANO, as Assistant Fiscal of Manila, City Hall, Manila, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jesus Lava filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to set aside an order of respondent Judge Jesus de Veyra, which denied his motion to dismiss the criminal case for violation of the Anti-Subversion Law ( Republic Act No. 1700 ). Lava contended that the law was unconstitutional, primarily as an ex post facto law and a bill of attainder, and that it denied him due process, equal protection, and freedom of association. The respondents, through various prosecutors, filed an answer refuting these constitutional challenges.
The Supreme Court required oral arguments and the submission of memoranda. Subsequently, the Court issued a resolution noting that the principal issue of the Anti-Subversion Law’s validity had already been sustained in the case of People v. Ferrer. The resolution further directed the parties, particularly the petitioner, to manifest whether the petition had become moot and academic, considering the Ferrer ruling and the fact that Jesus Lava was no longer under detention.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Jesus Lava has been rendered moot and academic.

RULING

Yes, the petition is dismissed for being moot and academic. The Court ruled that the principal legal questions raised by Lava—the constitutionality of the Anti-Subversion Law and the alleged denial of his constitutional rights—no longer possessed any practical significance or legal vitality as they pertained to him. The factual basis for the petition had ceased to exist because petitioner Jesus Lava had been released from detention and was free; consequently, the threat of loss of liberty and the ongoing prosecution against him had terminated.
The legal logic is grounded in the doctrine of mootness. Courts will not determine questions that have ceased to be actual controversies or where no substantial relief can be granted. Since Lava was no longer under detention and his prosecution had ceased, a ruling on the constitutional challenges would be merely advisory or academic. The Court further noted that the substantive issue regarding the validity of the Anti-Subversion Law had already been definitively settled in People v. Ferrer, which upheld the statute. Therefore, with the disappearance of the concrete injury and the preclusion of any effective judicial relief, the petition was rendered moot.