one Victor Burns Lovely, Jr.
, a Philippine-born The term "prima facie evidence" denotes evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is
American citizen from Los Angeles, California, sufficient to sustain the proposition it supports or to establish the facts, or to counterbalance the
almost killed himself and injured his younger presumption of innocence to warrant a conviction. The question raised before us now is: Were
brother, Romeo, as a result of the explosion of the evidences against the petitioner uncontradicted and if they were unexplained or
a small bomb inside his room at the YMCA uncontradicted, would they, standing alone, sufficiently overcome the presumption of innocence
building in Manila. Found in Lovely's and warrant his conviction? We do not think so
possession by police and military authorities
were several pictures taken sometime in May,
1980 at the birthday party of former
Congressman Raul Daza held at the latter's
residence in a Los Angeles suburb.
Mr. Lovely and his two brothers, Romeo and The records reveal that in finding a case against the petitioner, the respondent judge relied only
Baltazar Lovely where charged with on the testimonies of Col. Balbino Diego and Victor Lovely. Ambassador Armando Fernandez,
subversion, illegal possession of explosives, when called upon to testify on subversive organizations in the United States nowhere mentioned
and damage to property. the petitioner as an organizer, officer or member of the Movement for Free Philippines (MFP), or
any of the organizations mentioned in the complaint. Col. Diego, on the other hand, when asked
what evidence he was able to gather against the petitioner depended only on the statement of
Lovely "that it was the residence of ex Senator Salonga where they met together with Renato
Tañada, one of the brains of the bombing conspiracy . . . and the fact that Sen. Salonga has been
meeting with several subversive personnel based in the U.S.A. was also revealed to me by Victor
Burns Lovely; " and on the group pictures taken at former Congressman Raul Daza's birthday
party. In concluding that a conspiracy exists to overthrow by violent means the government of
the Philippines in the United States, his only bases were "documentary as well as physical and
sworn statements that were referred to me or taken by me personally," which of course negate
personal knowledge on his par
newspapers came out with almost identical The "contact point" theory or what the petitioner calls the "guilt by visit or guilt by association"
headlines stating in effect that petitioner had theory is too tenuous a basis to conclude that Senator Salonga was a leader or mastermind of
been linked to the various bombings in Metro the bombing incidents. To indict a person simply because some plotters, masquerading as
Manila 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 governmental processes in criminal
prosecutions would be seriously undermined
1980, elements of the military went to the in order to satisfy the due process clause it is not enough that the preliminary investigation is
hospital room of the petitioner at the Manila conducted in the sense of making sure that a transgressor shall not escape with impunity. A
Medical Center where he was confined due to preliminary investigation serves not only the purposes of the State. More important, it is a part of
his recurrent and chronic ailment of bronchial the guarantees of freedom and fair play which are birthrights of all who live in our country. It is,
asthma and placed him under arrest. The therefore, imperative upon the fiscal or the judge as the case may be, to relieve the accused from
arresting officer showed the petitioner the the pain of going through a trial once it is ascertained that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a
ASSO form which however did not specify the prima facie case or that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the
charge or charges against him. accused. Although there is no general formula or fixed rule for the determination of probable
cause since the same must be decided in the light of the conditions obtaining in given situations
and its existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting
the examination, such a finding should not disregard the facts before the judge nor run counter
to the clear dictates of reasons
