BROCKA v ENRILE 1990

192 SCRA 783

FACTS:
63 jeepney strike called by the Alliance of Concerned Transport Organization
(ACTO) demonstration held in sympathy of this strike, forcibly and violently dispersed
petitioners arrested by Northern Police District Officers Jan 28 85
64 petitioners charged with Illegal Assembly RPC146 par.3 in 3 crim cases filed
before RTC QC
65 all petitioners released on bail P3,000 each EXCEPT for Lino Brocka, Ben
Cervantes, Cosme Garcia and Rodolfo Santos (Brocka, et al.), who were charged as
leaders of the offense of Illegal Assembly for whom no bail was recommended
66 urgent petition for bail filed before the RTC daily hearings held between
Feb.1-7 85 On Feb. 7 or 9 85, RTC QC Judge Miriam Defensor Santiago ordered
Brocka, et als provisional release; recommended bail at P6,0000 each Brocka, et al
filed respective bail bonds BUT
67 Despite service of release order, Brocka, et al remained in detention
respondents-police officers invoked Preventive Detention Action (PDA) allegedly issued
against Brocka, et al on Jan. 28 85

Neither original nor certified true copy of this PDA was shown to Brocka, et al.

68 Feb 11 85 Brocka, et al charged with Inciting to Sedition in 3 crim cases;

hasty and spurious filing of this second offense as follows:

10:30 AM counsel informed by phone that Brocka, et al will be brought before the
QC Fiscal at 2:30PM for undisclosed reasons another phone call subsequently
received informing counsel that appearance of Brocka, et al was to be at 2:00PM
2:00PM Brocka, et al arrived at office of Asst. City Fiscal complainants
affidavits had not yet been received
3:00PM representative of the military arrived with alleged statements of
complainants against Brocka, et al for alleged inciting to sedition
3:15PM counsel inquired from Records Custodian when the charges against
Brocka, et al had been officially received informed that said charges were
never coursed through the Records Office
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 appears that respondents have conspired to
deprive Brocka, et al of the right to bail

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 confer with their clients no such
requirement required under the rules

69 Brocka, et al released provisionally on Feb.14 85 on orders of then Pres.Marcos

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 four on Feb15 85 and one on Feb.8 85
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.

70 Hence, this petition.

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
matter of defense in sedition charge so, only issue here is
ISSUE:
WON criminal prosecution of a case may be enjoined YES
RATIO:
GEN. RULE: Criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction,
preliminary or final
EXCEPTIONS:
1.
To afford adequate protection to the consti 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.
h. 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
HERE, 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 Jan.28 85 and invoked only on Feb.9 85 upon receipt of TCs
order of release violates guideline that PDA shall be invoked within 24 hrs in MM or 48
hours outside MM (Ilagan v Enrile)
Despite subpoenas for PDAs production, prosecution merely presented a purported
xeerox copy of it 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 HC]
Court Held: such a course of action would have been a futile move, considering the
circumstances then prevailing:
1. Spurious and inoperational PDA
2. Sham and hasty PI
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
IF-THEN RULE:
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.
xx Petition granted. TC permanently enjoined from proceeding in any manner with the
cases subject of the petition.