Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
JURISPRUDENCE
JovitoSalonga vs. Hon. Cruz-Pano
G.R. No. L-59524 Feb. 18, 1985
Facts:JovitoSalonga was charged with the violation of the Revised AntiSubversion Act after he wasimplicated, along with other 39 accused, by
Victor Lovely in the series of bombings in Metro Manila. Hewas tagged by
Lovely in his testimony as the leader of subversive organizations for two
reasons: (1)because his house was used as a contact point; and (2) because
of his remarks during the party of RaulDaza in Los Angeles. He allegedly
opined about the likelihood of a violent struggle in the Philippines if reforms
are not instituted immediately by then President Marcos.
Issue:Whether or not Salongas alleged remarks are protected by the
freedom of speech.
Held:Yes. The petition is dismissed.The petitioners opinion is nothing but a
legitimate exercise of freedom of thought andexpression. Protection is
especially mandated for political discussions. Political discussion is essential
tothe ascertainment of political truth. It cannot be the basis of criminal
indictments. The constitutionalguaranty may only be proscribed when such
advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminentlawless action and is
likely to incite or produce such action. In the case at bar, there is no threat
againstthe government.In PD 885, political discussion will only constitute
prima facie evidence of membership in asubversive organization if such
discussion amounts to conferring with officers or other members of
suchassociation or organization in furtherance of any plan or enterprise
thereof. In the case, there is noproof that such discussion was in furtherance
of any plan to overthrow the government through illegalmeans. Lovely also
declared that his bombing mission was not against the government, but
directedagainst a particular family. Such a statement negates any politically
motivated or subversive assignment.
for the defense tends to show that the Velasco children might have eaten
one of the sliced poisoned bread used by their father in poisoning rats in his
garden.
Issue:
Whether or not the non-presentation of Pipe makes the
testimony of other witness hearsay evidence.
Held: Pipe who was the alleged source of the vital information for the
prosecution was never presented as a witness either for the prosecution or
for the defense. Jaime and Velasco were presented as prosecution witnesses
to convey to the court what they learned from Pipe by a sign language. The
evidence is purely hearsay. The presentation of such evidence likewise
violates the principle of res inter alios acta. The rights of a party cannot be
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another.
The failure of the defense counsel to object to the presentation of
incompetent evidence, like hearsay evidence or evidence that violates the
rule of inter alios acta, or his failure to ask for the striking out of the same
does not give such evidence any probative value. The lack of objection may
make any incompetent evidence admissible but admissibility would not be
equated with weight of evidence. Hearsay evidence whether objected to or
not has no probative value.
10