Case Summary (G.R. No. 69863-65)
Emergence of Sedition Charges
Two days after the court-ordered release, City Fiscal filed informations for “inciting to sedition” (Revised Penal Code, Art. 142) without notifying defense counsel. The alleged utterances were nearly identical to those underlying the illegal‐assembly charges, suggesting a split of one act into two offenses to deny bail and prolong detention.
Petition for Injunctive Relief
Petitioners sought a permanent injunction to enjoin prosecution of the sedition charges, arguing bad faith, multiplicity of suits, double jeopardy, and violation of constitutional rights. After their provisional release by presidential order, the habeas corpus issue became moot; the Court focused on whether injunctive relief against a criminal prosecution was warranted.
Exceptions to the Inviolability of Criminal Prosecution
Under established jurisprudence, injunctions normally cannot restrain criminal prosecutions, except to protect constitutional rights, prevent multiplicity of actions, avoid oppression, halt prosecutions under invalid laws, or guard against double jeopardy and manifest bad faith. Petitioners invoked these exceptions, particularly persecution disguised as prosecution and bad‐faith splitting of offenses.
Findings of Bad Faith and Lawlessness
The Court found respondents’ conduct patently irregular:
• Invocation of a spurious PDA more than 24 hours after issuance and without formal proof.
• Hasty, sham preliminary investigation orchestrated by military custodian.
• Filing of sedition informations immediately after court‐ordered release, presumably to keep petitioners detained.
These actions demonstrated malicious intent and disregard for due process, warranting injunctive relief.
Constitutional and Jurisdictional Basis
Under the 1987 Constitution’s due‐process and equal‐protection guarantees, citize
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 69863-65)
Background and Nature of Petition
- Petitioners, prominent individuals and activists, sought release from detention via habeas corpus and injunctive relief against prosecutions.
- Original petition filed on February 13, 1985, to enjoin the City Fiscal of Quezon City from investigating “Inciting to Sedition.”
- Supplemental petition (February 19, 1985) impleaded Judge Ricardo Tensuan and sought to enjoin Criminal Cases Nos. Q-38023 to Q-38025.
- Provisional release ordered by President Marcos rendered the habeas corpus issue moot; the remaining question was the propriety of enjoining the sedition prosecutions.
Factual Antecedents
- January 28, 1985: Petitioners arrested after a violent dispersal of a demonstration in sympathy with an ACTO-called jeepney strike.
- They faced Illegal Assembly charges in Criminal Cases Nos. 37783, 37787 and 37788 before Branch 108, RTC, Quezon City.
- While most co-accused posted bail of ₱3,000, petitioners Brocka, Cervantes, Garcia and Santos—charged as leaders—were denied bail.
- Despite a bail order on February 7, 1985, respondents invoked a Preventive Detention Action (PDA) of January 28, 1985 to keep petitioners in custody.
- No original or certified copy of the PDA was produced despite subpoenas.
Circumstances of Sedition Charges
- On February 11, 1985, five days after arrest, petitioners were charged with “Inciting to Sedition” (Art. 142, RPC) in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-38023 to Q-38025.
- The informations recommended no bail and were filed without prior notice to petitioners’ counsel.
- Inquest proceedings allegedly orchestrated by military and fiscal agents:
- Counsel informed first of a 2:30 P.M. appearance; late