TOPIC Provisional Remedies

CASE NO. G.R. Nos. 69863-65. (December 10, 1990)

CASE NAME Brocka v. Enrile
MEMBER Dane

DOCTRINE
GR: criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final.
XPN:
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

RECIT-READY DIGEST
Brocka and others were arrested by Northern Police District Officers after the forcible and violent
dispersal of a demonstration for a jeepney strike called by the Alliance of Concerned Transport
Organization.Petitioners were charged with Illegal Assembly by RTC QC. Petitioners except Brocka et al
(leaders of the offense) were released on bail. Despite their subsequent service of release order, they
remained in detention because respondents invoked Preventive Detention Action (PDA) issued against
petitioner, who were later on charged with Inciting to Sedition. Since then President Marcos had ordered
the provisional release Brocka et. al. however they still contend that bad faith and/or harassment
sufficient bases for enjoining their criminal prosecution

The criminal prosecution can be enjoined. (CHECK DOCTRINE)

APPLICATION: Where there is manifest bad faith that accompanies the filing of criminal charges, as in
the instant case where Brocka, et al. were barred from enjoying provisional release until such time that
charges were filed, and where a sham preliminary investigation was hastily conducted, charges that are
filed as a result should lawfully be enjoined.

FACTS
● Brocka and others were arrested by Northern Police District Officers after the forcible and violent
dispersal of a demonstration for a jeepney strike called by the Alliance of Concerned Transport
Organization.Petitioners were charged with Illegal Assembly by RTC QC.
● 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.
● Urgent petition for bail filed before the RTC and daily hearings held. RTC QC Judge Miriam
Defensor Santiago ordered Brocka, et al’s provisional release; recommended bail at P6,0000 each a
Brocka, et al filed respective bail bonds.

1
● Despite service of release order, Brocka, et al remained in detention as police officers invoked
Preventive Detention Action (PDA) allegedly issued against Brocka, et al. Neither original nor
certified true copy of this PDA was shown to Brocka, et al.
● 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 and 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 a 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 and 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 a 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 counsel’s 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 ’85 on orders of then Pres. Marcos a release narrated
in Court’s 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 ’85
○ Brocka et al, 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.
● Hence, this petition. Brocka, et al contend:
○ bad faith and/or harassment sufficient bases for enjoining their criminal prosecution
○ 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. They maintain
that while there may be a complex crime from a single act (Art. 48, RTC), the law does not
allow the splitting of a single act into two offenses and filing two informations therefor,
further, that they will be placed in double jeopardy.

ISSUE/S and HELD

W/N the criminal prosecution can be enjoined? YES (note that Brocka want to enjoin the criminal
prosecution because of bad faith and/or harassment)

RATIO
The criminal prosecution can be enjoined.
 Court ruled in favor of Brocka, et al. and enjoin their criminal prosecution for the second offense of
inciting to sedition.
 Indeed, the general rule is that criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by
injunction, preliminary or final. There are however so exceptions:
12. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused
13. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or
multiplicity of actions

2
 14. When there is no prejudicial question which is subjudice
15. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority
16. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation
17. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent
18. When the court has no jurisdiction over the offense
19. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
20. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance
21. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that
ground had been denied
22. Preliminary injunction has been issued by the SC to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest
of petitioners
 In this case, criminal proceedings had become a case of persecution (an exception), having been
undertaken by state officials in bad faith:
o Respondents invoked a spurious PDA in refusing Brocka, et al’s release from detention but
this PDA was invoked beyond the allowable time.
o Despite subpoenas for PDA’s production, prosecution merely presented a purported xerox
copy of it that violates Court pronouncement that original, and the duplicate original, and a
certified true copy should be furnished.
 Court agreed with SolGen’s manifestation that Brocka, et al should have filed a motion to
quash the information instead of a petition for Habeas Corpus. However, it noted that such
course of action would have been a futile move, considering the circumstances then prevailing:
o Spurious and inoperational PDA and
o 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.”
 Where there is manifest bad faith that accompanies the filing of criminal charges, as in the
instant case where Brocka, et al. were barred from enjoying provisional release until such time
that charges were filed, and where a sham preliminary investigation was hastily conducted,
charges that are filed as a result should lawfully be enjoined.

DISPOSTIVE PORTION
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The trial court is PERMANENTLY ENJOINED
from proceeding in any manner with the cases subject of the petition. No costs.