OCTAVIO A. KALALO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. EMILIO V. SALAS, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH I, AND THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF RIZAL, RESPONDENTS.

Kalalo versus Salas

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition brought by Octavio A. Kalalo against Judge Emilio V. Salas of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch One, and the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal. The petitioner challenged the preliminary investigation conducted against him, contending that he was denied the opportunity to present his counter-affidavits and was thereby deprived of his constitutional guarantee to due process. The case matters to a reviewee not for any grand doctrinal pronouncement, but as a study in how a constitutional objection to preliminary investigation can be resolved, and how a case can become moot and academic when the relief sought is voluntarily granted by the very office the petitioner complains of.

Procedural History

The petitioner was charged before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch One, presided over by the respondent Judge. He filed a motion to dismiss the information on the ground that the facts alleged therein do not constitute the crime of libel. The respondent Judge denied that motion. The petitioner then came to the Supreme Court, challenging the preliminary investigation conducted by the office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, and also submitting that the respondent Judge abused its discretion in denying his motion to dismiss. During the oral argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the petitioner and the Provincial Fiscal, assisted by the Assistant Fiscal who had personally conducted the preliminary investigation, agreed on a procedure that would ensure the parties the utmost protection of their rights without being hampered by technicalities.

Facts

An information was filed against Octavio A. Kalalo before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The preliminary investigation of the charge was personally conducted by Assistant Fiscal Herminio I. Benito of the office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal.

The petitioner contended that during that preliminary investigation he was not granted an opportunity to present his counter-affidavits. He raised this as a violation of his constitutional guarantee to due process, and brought the matter before the Supreme Court.

At the oral argument, the Provincial Fiscal stated in open court that his office was granting the petitioner ten days from that day, August 5, 1974, within which to submit his counter-affidavit or affidavits. Counsel for the petitioner, in turn, agreed not to press before the Court his submission that the respondent Judge abused its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss, without prejudice to renewing that defense either before the Fiscal's office after submission of the counter-affidavits, or again before the respondent Court after the prosecution shall have submitted and closed its evidence.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner was denied due process in the preliminary investigation because he was not given an opportunity to present his counter-affidavits.
• Whether or not the respondent Judge abused its discretion in denying the petitioner's motion to dismiss the information on the ground that the facts alleged therein do not constitute the crime of libel.

Applicable Provisions

The decision refers to the constitutional guarantee to due process invoked by the petitioner, without quoting the constitutional text. The Court resolved the case on the procedural agreement of the parties rather than on a construction of any provision.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court did not reach a ruling on the merits. The Provincial Fiscal stated in open court that his office was granting the petitioner ten days from August 5, 1974, within which to submit his counter-affidavit or affidavits. That grant gave the petitioner precisely the opportunity he claimed to have been denied, and the constitutional objection was thereby satisfied.

On the second issue, the petitioner, through counsel, agreed not to press before the Court his submission that the respondent Judge abused its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss. That defense was reserved, without prejudice to his renewing it either before the Fiscal's office after submission of his counter-affidavits, or again before the respondent Court after the prosecution shall have submitted and closed its evidence.

With the relief sought thus voluntarily extended and the remaining submission withdrawn, the Court held that the case had become moot and academic. The Court commended both counsel for having readily acceded to its suggestion during the oral argument to agree on a procedure that would ensure the parties the utmost protection of their rights without being hampered by technicalities, and observed that this is one way by which the Court can solve its nagging problem of a heavily clogged docket.

Doctrine

A case becomes moot and academic when the relief prayed for has been granted, or when the issue has ceased to be live, so that no actual controversy remains for the Court to resolve. Where the fiscal, in open court, grants the accused the very opportunity to submit counter-affidavits that he claims was denied him in the preliminary investigation, the due process objection is spent and the petition must be dismissed.

A party who agrees not to press a submission before the Court, reserving instead the right to renew it in the proper forum, cannot expect a ruling on that submission; the reservation preserves the defense but removes it from the case at hand.

Procedural objections should not be allowed to hamper the protection of the parties' rights. The Court looks with favor on counsel who agree on a procedure that secures those rights without technicality, for it eases the clogged docket.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, the case having become moot and academic, without pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a case becomes moot and academic when the relief sought is granted, as when the fiscal grants the accused time to submit counter-affidavits during the preliminary investigation. Examiners use this case to test mootness and the nature of the right to present counter-affidavits in preliminary investigation, and to remind candidates that reservations of defenses keep them alive in the proper forum, not before the Supreme Court.