Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Guian Gabriel Carmelo-People VS. Lino Brocka
Guian Gabriel Carmelo-People VS. Lino Brocka
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. 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
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.