BROCKA V.

ENRILE
G.R. NO. 69863-65
DECEMBER 10, 1990

Topic:
Injunction to restrain criminal prosecution: exceptions to the general rule

Facts:
Sometime in 1985, a consolidated criminal information of “Inciting to Sedition” and
“illegal assembly was filed against herein petitioners, all of them were activists and members of
anti-Marcos movement. They were arrested and detained without giving them rights to explain
their sides, and examine the allegations changed against them.

Thereafter, a petition for injunction was failed by petitioners, requesting the court to
“enjoin” the trial court for conducting a trial against them on the ground of lack of merits. The
prosecution, on the other hand, assailed the injunction, claiming that it is the right of the state
to prosecute criminal violations.

Issue:
Whether the petition for injunction violates the right of the state to prosecute criminal
violators

Held:
No, the petition does not violate the right of the state to prosecute criminal violations.

The court argues that as a general rule, the court will not issue units of prohibition or
injunction, preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain, criminal prosecutions. This is so simply
because, it is the policy of the state to prosecute and punish criminals, as indirect promotion of
law.

However, the court also recognizes certain exceptions, namely:

(1) When the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional
rights of other accused; (2) when it is necessary for the orderly administration of
justice, or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions, and others.
Clearly, all criminal changes filed against petitioners were all manifested by
vengeance and politics, not mentioning the fact that they did not satisfied the
requirements of law for filing criminal cases, namely; preliminary examination by
the judge, and prima facie element.