[G.R. No. 69863-65 : December 10, 1990.

]
LINO BROCKA vs. JUAN PONCE ENRILE

FACTS:

Petitioners were arrested on January 28, 1985 by elements of the Northern Police District following the
forcible and violent dispersal of a demonstration held in sympathy with the jeepney strike called by the Alliance of
Concerned Transport Organization (ACTO). Thereafter, they were charged with Illegal Assembly in 3 criminal cases
with Branch 108, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City.
Except for Brocka, et al. who were charged as leaders of the offense of Illegal Assembly and for whom no
bail was recommended, the other petitioners were released on bail of P3,000.00 each. Brocka, et al.'s provisional
release was ordered only upon an urgent petition for bail for which daily hearings from February 1-7, 1985 were
held.
However, despite service of the order of release on February 9, 1985, Brocka, et al. remained detained,
respondents having invoked a Preventive Detention Action (PDA) allegedly issued against them. Neither the
original, duplicate original nor certified true copy of the PDA was ever shown to them.
Brocka, et al. were subsequently charged on February 11, 1985 with Inciting to Sedition, without prior
notice to their counsel. The original informations filed recommended no bail. The circumstances surrounding the
hasty filing of this second offense are cited by Brocka, et al.
February 11 1985 Brocka, et al charged with Inciting to Sedition in 3 criminal cases; hasty and spurious filing of
this second offense as follows:
o 10:30 AM counsel informed by phone that Brocka, et al will be brought before the QC Fiscal at 2:30PM for
undisclosed reasons a another phone call subsequently received informing counsel that appearance of
Brocka, et al was to be at 2:00PM
o 2:00PM Brocka, et al arrived at office of Asst. City Fiscal a complainants affidavits had not yet been received
o 3:00PM representative of the military arrived with alleged statements of complainants against Brocka, et al
for alleged inciting to sedition
o 3:15PM counsel inquired from Records Custodian when the charges against Brocka, et al had been officially
received a informed that said charges were never coursed through the Records Office
o ALSO, utterances allegedly constituting Inciting to Sedition under RPC142 are, almost verbatim, the same
utterances which are the subject of the crim cases for Illegal Assembly for which Brocka, et al are entitled to
be relased on bail as a matter of Constitutional right a appears that respondents have conspired to deprive
Brocka, et al of the right to bail
o AND, panel of assistant fiscals demanded that Brocka, et al sign a waiver of their rights under RPC125 as a
condition for the grant of the counsels request that they be given 7 days within which counsel
may conferwith their clients a no such requirement required under the rules

Brocka, et al released provisionally on Feb.14, 1985 on orders of then Pres. Marcos a release narrated in Courts
resolution in petition for habeas corpus filed by Sedfrey Ordonez in behalf of Brocka, et al: In Return of the Writ of
Habeas Corpus, respondents said all accused had already been released a four on Feb15 85 and one on Feb.8 1985.
Petitioners, nevertheless, still argue that the petition has not become moot and academic because the accused
continue to be in the custody of the law under an invalid charge of inciting to sedition.

DEFENSE OF COMPLAINANT, ID., Brocka, et al contend:

1. bad faith and/or harassment sufficient bases for
enjoining their criminal prosecution
2. second offense of Inciting to Sedition manifestly
illegal premised on one and the same act of participating in the ACTO jeepney strike a matter of defense in
sedition charge so, only issue here is

ISSUE:
May a criminal prosecution of a case be enjoined?
RULING:
YES We rule in favor of Brocka, et al. and enjoin their criminal prosecution for the second offense of inciting
to sedition.

The general rule is that criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or
final. With the exception of the following:
1. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused
2. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of
actions
3. When there is no prejudicial question which is subjudice
4. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority
5. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation
6. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent
7. When the court has no jurisdiction over the offense
8. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
9. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance
10. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground had
been denied
11. Preliminary injunction has been issued by the SC to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of
petitioners

In the case at bar, criminal proceedings had become a case of persecution, have been undertaken by state officials
in bad faith:
1. Respondents invoked a spurious PDA in refusing Brocka, et als release from detention BUT this PDA was
issued on January 28 1985 and invoked only on Feb.9 1985 upon receipt of TCs order of release a violates
guideline that PDA shall be invoked within 24 hrs in Metro, Manila or 48 hours outside Metro, Manila
Despite subpoenas for PDAs production, prosecution merely presented a purported xeerox copy of it a violates
Court pronouncement that individuals against whom PDAs have been issued should be furnished with the
original, and the duplicate original, and a certified true copy issued by the official having official custody of
the PDA, at the time of the apprehension (Ilagan v Enrile)
2. SolGens manifestation: Brocka, et al should have filed a motion to quash the information instead of a petition
for Habeas Corpus

The Court agreed with the contention of the SolGen. However, it noted that such course of action would have been
a futile move, considering the circumstances then prevailing:
1. Spurious and inoperational PDA
2. Sham and hasty Preliminary Investigation
Clear signals that the prosecutors intended to keep Brocka, et al in detention until the second offense could be
facilitated and justified without need of issuing a warrant of arrest anew.

"Infinitely more important than conventional adherence to general rules of criminal procedure is respect for the
citizen's right to be free not only from arbitrary arrest and punishment but also from unwarranted and vexatious
prosecution.

If there is manifest bad faith that accompanies the filing of criminal charges (as in this case where petitioners were
barred from enjoying provisional release until such time that charges were filed) and where a sham preliminary
investigation was hastily conducted THEN charges that are filed as a result should lawfully be enjoined.