B2022 ANNOTATED
Brocka v. Enrile
I. RECIT-READY SUMMARY
Brocka, et al were arrested after a forcible and violent dispersal of a demonstration
in sympathy with the jeepney strike called the Alliance of Concerned Transport Or-
ganization (ACTO). They were charged with Illegal Assembly. Petitioners were
charged as leaders so they remained in detention until the RTC issued a resolution to
release them on bail on Feb. 9. Despite this order of release, they still remained in
detention because then President Marcos issued a Preventive Detention Action
(PDA) on January 28.
Neither the original copy, duplicate original nor certified true copy of the PDA was
ever shown to them.
Two days later after the order of release, they were yet again charge with Inciting to
Sedition.
They were released provisionally by orders of Pres. Marcos on Feb. 14. Note that
the petition to secure the release of the petitioners was on Feb. 13. This original peti-
tion became moot and academic after the provisional release.
But petitioners argue that this petition has not become moot and academic because
they continued to be in the custody of the law under an invalid charge on the ground
that there was manifest bad faith and/or harassment on the part of the respondents.
Hence, this petition.
Issue: W/N the criminal proceeding of the criminal case for Inciting to Sedition may
lawfully be enjoined
RULING: The criminal proceedings had become a case of persecution, having been
undertaken by state officials in bad faith. The PDA was invoked two days after a
resolution of the RTC for their release on bail. In a previous ruling, PDAs may only
be invoked within 24 hours (w/in Metro Manila) or 48 hours (outside Metro Manila)
after its issuance. Moreover, the PDA was not shown in its required form. T he pros-
ecution merely presented a purported xerox copy of the invoked PDA.
Thus, the invocation of a spurious and inoperational PDA and the sham and hasty
preliminary investigation were clear signals that the prosecutors intended to keep
Brocka, et al. in detention until the second offense of "Inciting to Sedition" could be
facilitated and justified without need of issuing a warrant of arrest anew.
DOCTRINE: The general rule is that criminal prosecution may not be re-
strained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final. There are however ex-
ceptions, among which are:
a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused
b. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppres-
sion or multiplicity of actions
c. When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub judice
G.R. NO: GR NO.
TOPIC OF CASE: WHEN INJUNCTION MAY BE ISSUED TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
B2022 ANNOTATED
Brocka v. Enrile
d. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority
e. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance, or regulation
f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent
g. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense
h. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for
vengeance and
j. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion
to quash on that ground has been denied
k. Where preliminary injunction has been issued by the SC to prevent the
threatened unlawful arrest of petitioner.
II. FACTS OF THE CASE
Petitioners were arrested by the Northern Police District after the forcible and vio-
lent dispersal of a demonstration held in sympathy with the jeepney strike called the
Alliance of Concerned Transport Organization (ACTO). They were charged with Il-
legal Assembly.
All the demonstrators were released on bail except for Brocka et. al. who were
charged as leaders of the offense of Illegal Assemby. However, despite the order of
release on bail in a resolution by the RTC, they still remained in detention after re-
spondents apparently invoked a Preventive Detention Action (PDA) allegedly issued
against them on January 28, 1985. Note that the order of release was on Feb. 9,
1985. Neither the original copy, duplicate original nor certified true copy of the
PDA was ever shown to them. The PDA was issued by then President Marcos. Thus,
they continued to be under detention by order of the respondent colonels.
After the order of release, two days later, they were subsequently charged with Incit-
ing to Sedition WITHOUT prior notice to their counsel.
They were released provisionally on Feb.14, on orders of then Pres. Marcos.
NOTE: This petition was originally filed on Feb. 13, 1985 (the next day
they were released provisionally by Marcos thus this petition became moot
and academic) to secure the release of petitioners on habeas corpus and to
permanently enjoin the City Fiscal of QC from investigation charges of In-
citing to Sedition.
Despite their release, the petitioners argue that the petition has not become moot and
academic because they continued to be in the custody of the law under an invalid
charge of inciting to sedition.
Hence, this petition to the SC.
Brocka et. al contends the ff:
PONENTE:
DIGEST MAKER:Abagat
 B2022 ANNOTATED B2022 ANNOTATED
Brocka v. Enrile Brocka v. Enrile

1. The respondent’s manifest bad faith and/or harassment are sufficient bases for en-
joining their criminal prosecution
2. The second offense of inciting to sedition is illegal, since it is premised on one
and the same act of attending and participating in the ACTO Jeepney strike.
3. While there may be a complex crime from a single act, the law does not allow the
splitting of a single act into two offense and filing two informations placing them
in double jeopardy
III. ISSUE/S
Whether or not the prosecution of the criminal cases for inciting to sedition may
lawfully be enjoined - Yes
IV. RATIO/LEGAL BASIS
The Court rules in favor of Brocka, et al. and enjoin their criminal prosecution
of a case, since the two other issues raised by Brocka, et al are matters of de-
fense.
The general rule is that criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by in -
junction, preliminary or final. There are however exceptions, among which are:
a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused
b. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression
or multiplicity of actions
c. When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub judice
d. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority
e. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance, or regulation
f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent
g. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense
h. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance
and
j. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to
quash on that ground has been denied
k. Where preliminary injunction has been issued by the SC to prevent the threat-
ened unlawful arrest of petitioner.
PDAs shall be invoked within 24 hours (in Metro Manila) or 48 hours (outside
Metro Manila).
Noteworthy also is Brocka, et al.'s claim that, despite subpoenas for its production,
the prosecution merely presented a purported xerox copy of the invoked PDA. In
the Ilagan case, the court expressed its view that “individuals against whom PDAs
have been issued should be furnished with the original, duplicate original or a certi-
fied true copy at the time of apprehension.
The hasty filing of the second offense, premised on a spurious and inoperational
PDA, certainly betrays respondent's bad faith and malicious intent to pursue criminal
charges against Brocka, et al.
Thus, the hastily prepared and inoperation PDA and the sham prelimary investiga-
tion were clear signals that the prosecutors intended to keep Brocka, et al. in deten-
tion UNTIL the second offense of Inciting to Sedition could be justified without
need of issuing a warrant of arrest.
V. DISPOSITION
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The trial court is PERMA-
NENTLY ENJOINED from proceeding in any manner with the cases subject of the
petition. No costs.
VI. Notes
Sub judice refers to a mattter before a court or a judge, under judicial consideration
and not yet decided. When a matter has yet to be proved or disproved in a court case
it is sub judice and unable to be discussed or stated as a fact in public.

The circumstances show that the criminal proceedings had become a case of perse-
cution, having been undertaken by state officials in bad faith.

Respondents, on the other hand, had invoked a PDA in refusing Brocka, et al.'s re-
lease from detention (before their release on orders of then Pres. Marcos). This PDA
was, however, issued on January 28, 1985, but was invoked only on February 9,
1985 (upon receipt of the trial court's order of release). Under the guidelines issued,

G.R. NO: GR NO. PONENTE:

TOPIC OF CASE: WHEN INJUNCTION MAY BE ISSUED TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION DIGEST MAKER:Abagat