Samson vs Guingona

GR 123504

Facts:

A murder case was filed against the police-petitioners, for the slaughter of Datu
Sinsuat. Upon filing of the complaint, this case was subsequently assigned to
Prosecutor Velasco in order to determine whether there was probable cause. In his
resolution, he concluded that there was enough evidence for this case to be filed
before the trial court for the issuance of warrants of arrest.

On the same day when the information was filed, accused petitioners filed a Very
Urgent Motion for Judicial Determination of Existence of Probable Cause (to Hold
the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest).

Trial Court ordered for reinvestigation, in its order, the court stated that there was not
enough probable cause. Trial court ordered the Chief State Prosecutor, the DOJ or his
Assistant to reinvestigate the case.

Hence, they filed a petition to the SC to enjoin the above-stated authorities from
further proceeding with the reinvestigation with the case.

Issue:
Whether petitioners can request for the SC to enjoin the respondents from firther
reinvestigating the case.

Ruling:

Petitioners’ plea for injunction to retrain the reinvestigation of the criminal case
against them is not legally permissible.

As a general rule, the court will not issue writs of prohibition or injunction
preliminary or final, to enjoin or restrain, criminal prosecution. With more reason will
injunction not lie when the case is still at the stage of preliminary investigation or
reinvestigation. Unless, in extreme cases such as;

1. Injunction is necessary to protect constitutional rights of the accused

2. Necessary for orderly administration of justice
3. When there is prejudicial question which is sub judice
4. Act of authority is without or excess of jurisdiction
5. Where the prosecution is under invalid law
6. Double jeopardy is clearly apparent
7. Court has no jurisdiction over the offense
8. persecution not prosecution
9. Charges false/motivated by lust or vengeance
10. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to
quash on that ground has been denied
11. Preliminary Injunction has been issued by the SC to prevent the threatened
unlawful arrest of persons.

In the case at bar, accused petitioners have not shown any instance that would fall
within any exceptions recognized. They have only relied on the probability that a
reinvestigation will result in the remand of the case to the court and the issuance of
warrant of arrest. Therefore, their request was without merit.