G.R. No. L-59524 February 18, 1985
JOVITO R. SALONGA, petitioner, vs. HON. ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal Branch XVIII (Quezon City), HON. JUDGE RODOLFO ORTIZ, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXXI (Quezon City) CITY FISCAL SERGIO APOSTOL of Quezon City; COL. BALBINO DIEGO and COL. ROMAN MADELLA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jovito R. Salonga, a prominent opposition figure, sought relief from this Court to prohibit his prosecution for subversion, alleging a violation of his constitutional right to due process. The case stemmed from a series of bombings in Metro Manila in 1980. Following an explosion involving American citizen Victor Burns Lovely, Jr., military authorities discovered photographs from a party in Los Angeles showing Salonga with Lovely and others. During a televised press conference, Lovely’s brother, Romeo, stated he had driven Victor to Salonga’s residence on two occasions, but provided no details implicating Salonga in any illegal activity. Subsequently, headlines linked Salonga to the bombings.
Based on statements from Victor Lovely, who offered to be a state witness, an Arrest, Search, and Seizure Order (ASSO) was issued against Salonga. He was arrested while hospitalized for bronchial asthma. He was detained, first in the hospital and later transferred to a military camp, without being informed of specific charges or being subjected to any investigation. After his release to house arrest, a preliminary investigation notice was sent, but Salonga alleged he never received the charge sheet or supporting evidence. The case was later filed in court by the City Fiscal.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for prohibition has been rendered moot and academic by the dismissal of the subversion case against Salonga by the trial court during the pendency of this appeal.

RULING

Yes, the petition is moot and academic. The core legal issue was the propriety of prohibiting the respondents from prosecuting Salonga in Criminal Case No. Q-18606 for subversion. The trial court, in an Order dated January 18, 1985, granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss the case against Salonga, thereby dropping all charges against him. Consequently, the primary objective of the petition—to stop a pending prosecution—was achieved, and there no longer existed any active case to prohibit.
However, the Court abandoned its previous practice of dismissing moot cases without further comment. Citing precedents like De la Camara v. Enage and Gonzales v. Marcos, the Court held that even moot cases should be decided on their merits when they involve constitutional issues of paramount public importance or are capable of repetition yet evading review. The circumstances of Salonga’s arrest and detention—based on an ASSO without judicial scrutiny, followed by prolonged detention without formal charges or a proper preliminary investigation—raised grave constitutional questions regarding due process. The Court emphasized that the constitutional guarantees of liberty and due process demand that arrests and prosecutions be based on competent evidence and proper legal procedures, not on mere suspicion or political persecution. While no affirmative relief could be granted due to mootness, the Court resolved the petition to provide guidance and affirm these fundamental principles, ensuring that such violations do not escape judicial scrutiny.