168.) Case Name: LINO BROCKA, ET AL VS. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, MAJ.

By: Joyce
GEN. FIDEL RAMOS, ET. AL Topic: Preliminary Injunction;
GR No. 69863-65 provisional remedy and the principal
Date: December 10, 1990 remedy itself
Facts

 Petitioners Brocka, et al. and 34 others were arrested by the Northern Police District after they participated in a
jeepney strike called by Alliance of Concerned Transport Organization (ACTO).
 Thereafter, Brocka, et al. were charged with Illegal Assembly before the RTC of Quezon City
 The 34 other petitioners were released on bail except for Brocka, et al. who were charged as leaders of the offense of
Illegal Assembly for whom no bail was recommended
 An urgent petition of bail had been filed in behalf of Brocka, et al. and was later granted with provisional release by
then RTC-QC Judge Defensor-Santiago
 Considering that Brocka, et al. had been granted a release order, they remained in detention after respondents Enrile,
Ramos invoked Preventive Detention Action (PDA) issued against them by then Pres. Marcos. Neither the original,
duplicate original nor certified true copy of the PDA was ever shown to them.
 Thereafter, detained Brocka et al. were charged with Inciting to Sedition without prior notice to their counsel. Before
the filling of this hasty and spurious second offense, these events transpired as follows:
- Counsel was informed by phone that Brocka, et al will be brought before the QC Fiscal at 2:30PM for
undisclosed reasons
- Brocka, et al arrived at office of Asst. City Fiscal a complainants’ affidavits had not yet been received
- Representative of the military arrived with alleged statements of complainants against Brocka, et al for
alleged inciting to sedition
- 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
- Further, utterances allegedly constituting Inciting to Sedition under Art. 142 of the RCP 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 released on bail as a matter of Constitutional right a appears that respondents have conspired to
deprive Brocka, et al of the right to bail
- Panel of assistant fiscals demanded that Brocka, et al sign a waiver of their rights under Art. 125 of the RCP
as a condition for the grant of the counsel’s request that they be given 7 days within which counsel
may confer with their clients a no such requirement required under the rules
 Brocka, et al were released provisionally on orders of then Pres. Marcos. The circumstances of their release are
narrated in Court’s resolution in the petition for habeas corpus filed by Sedfrey Ordonez in behalf of Brocka, et al.
 Ordonez, 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 that respondents’ manifest bad faith and/or harassment sufficient bases for
enjoining their criminal prosecution. And that the second offense of Inciting to Sedition is manifestly illegal since it is
premised on one and the same act of participating in the ACTO jeepney strike.
Issue/s
WON the prosecution of a criminal case for Inciting to Sedition may be enjoined. –YES.

Ruling:

The SC ruled in favor of Brocka, et al. and enjoin their criminal prosecution for the second offense of inciting to sedition.
Indeed, the general rule is that criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final. There
are however exceptions, among which are:
XXX XXX
h. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution.
XXX XXX
k. Preliminary injunction has been issued by the SC to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners

The hasty filing of the second offense, premised on a spurious and inoperational PDA, certainly betrays respondents’ (Enrile et
al) bad faith and malicious intent to pursue criminal charges against Brocka, et al.
The Court in view of the Ilagan case 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".
Thus, the tenacious 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. As a matter of fact the corresponding
information for this second offense were hastily filed two days after Brocka, et al.'s release from detention as ordered by the
trial judge.

SC ruled that where there is manifest bad faith that accompanies the filing of criminal charges, as in the instant case where
Brocka, et al. were barred from enjoying provisional release until such time that charges were filed, and where a sham
preliminary investigation was hastily conducted, charges that are filed as a result should lawfully be enjoined.

Wherefore, petition is GRANTED. The trial court was PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from proceeding in any manner with the
cases subject of the petition.

Doctrine Notes