University of the Philippines College of Law

CJSE D2021
Case Name DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO v. VASQUEZ
Topic Injunctions of criminal prosecutions
Case No. | Date GR No. 99289-90 | Jan 13, 1992
Ponente Regalado, J.

RELEVANT FACTS
 Petitioner, Miriam Defensor-Santiago was charged under three separate informations:
o Before the SB: As Commissioner of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID), approving
application for legalization of aliens who arrived in the PH, in violation of EO 324 & RA 3019
o Before the RTC: Soliciting and receiving money, gifts from Filipino and foreign businessmen by reason
of their official positions for past/future favors, in violation of PD 46
o Before the RTC: For libel, making defamatory statements against Maria Tatoy, then Chief of the
Certificate Section (CID), in the presence of the media
 Santiago filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin the SB and RTC from proceeding with the
cases, contending that the criminal charges were:
o Meant to harass her as a presidential candidate, in violation of Sec 10, Art 9C (1987C), as the criminal
informations were filed just a year before the presidential elections, and
o That it violated the essence of fair play, as the informations were filed at a time when she was
disadvantaged by injuries from a vehicular accident

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
WON her case falls NO. Her case does not fall under the exceptions to the rule.
under the exception
to the general rule GENERAL RULE: Writs of injunction or prohibition will not lie to restrain a criminal
prosecution for the reason that public interest requires that criminal acts be immediately
investigated and prosecuted for the protection of society.

EXCEPTIONS: 1) To prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and
vindictive manner, and 2) To afford adequate protection to constitutional rights

There is nothing to show that the informations in question were filed with the vindictive
intention to oppress, harass and discriminate against her or to violate her constitutional
rights. She did not make any denial of the operative facts from which the charges filed
were based on.

We are not persuaded that we should, in the present recourse, pass upon these
asseverations of petitioner which we note have previously been raised during the
preliminary investigation. She will, of course, have all the opportunity to ventilate and
substantiate the same in the proceedings before and/or during the trial of these cases.

RULING
Petition dismissed.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CJSE D2021
SEPARATE OPINIONS
J. Feliciano, dissenting:
 Believes that if the instant case does not fall under any of the exceptions in Brocka v. Enrile, then another
exception should be recognized
o 1st case: EO 324 implementation involves exercise of discretion, and defense of Santiago that her
decision was to assure family unity is recognized as a ground to waive exclusion of aliens, and they
were not included in the excluded classes  no undue injury made to government since the aliens
were eligible under the conditions of EO 324
o 2nd case: Solicitation letter was for the CID Christmas party
 2 out of the 3 charges should have been dismissed

NOTES