Digest - Brocka vs. Enrile

[G.R. No. 69863-65 : December 10, 1990.] LINO BROCKA vs. JUAN PONCE ENRILE FACTS: • Jeepney strike called by the Alliance of Concerned Transport Organization (ACTO) a demonstration held in sympathy of this strike, forcibly and violently dispersed a petitioners arrested by Northern Police District Officers – Jan 28 ‘85 • Petitioners charged with Illegal Assembly RPC146 par.3 in 3 crim cases filed before 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 a daily hearings held between Feb.1-7 ’85 a On Feb. 7 or 9 ’85, 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 BUT… • Despite service of release order, Brocka, et al remained in detention a respondents-police officers invoked Preventive Detention Action (PDA) allegedly issued against Brocka, et al on Jan. 28 ‘85 o Neither original nor certified true copy of this PDA was shown to Brocka, et al. • 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: o 10:30 AM counsel informed by phone that Brocka, et al will be brought before the QC Fiscal at 2:30PM for undisclosed reasons a another phone call subsequently received informing counsel that appearance of Brocka, et al was to be at 2:00PM o 2:00PM Brocka, et al arrived at office of Asst. City Fiscal a complainants’ affidavits had not yet been received o 3:00PM representative of the military arrived with alleged statements of complainants against Brocka, et al for alleged inciting to sedition o 3:15PM counsel inquired from Records Custodian when the charges against Brocka, et al had been officially received a informed that said charges were never coursed through the Records Office o 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 o 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: o 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 o 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. • 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 a matter of defense in sedition charge so, only issue here is… ISSUE: Whether or not criminal prosecution of a case may be enjoined – YES RULING: We rule in favor of Brocka, et al. and enjoin their criminal prosecution for the second offense of inciting to sedition. •

GEN. RULE: Criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final

•

EXCEPTIONS: 1. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions When there is no prejudicial question which is subjudice When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation When double jeopardy is clearly apparent When the court has no jurisdiction over the offense Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance 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 In the case at bar, 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 al’s release from detention BUT this PDA was issued on Jan.28 ’85 and invoked only on Feb.9 ’85 upon receipt of TC’s order of release a violates guideline that PDA shall be invoked within 24 hrs in Metro, Manila or 48 hours outside Metro, Manila Despite subpoenas for PDA’s production, prosecution merely presented a purported xeerox copy of it a 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. SolGen’s manifestation: Brocka, et al should have filed a motion to quash the information instead of a petition for Habeas Corpus The Court agreed with the contention of the SolGen. However, it noted that such course of action would have been a futile move, considering the circumstances then prevailing: 1. Spurious and inoperational PDA 2. 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. 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. 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.