Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LINO BROCKA v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR Nos. 212140-41 2015-01-21	SENATOR JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA v. BERSAMIN CARPIO, J.
It might be argued that such recourse will only be circuitous and might simply be postponing the inevitable. Surely, it will hold the conduct of the case. But where the rights of an individual are concerned, the end does not justify the means. To be sure, "society has particular interest in bringing swift prosecutions."[62] Nonetheless, the constitutional rights of citizens cannot be sacrificed at the altar of speed and expediency. As enunciated in Brocka v. Enrile,[63] the Court cannot, and will not, sanction procedural shortcuts that forsake due process in our quest for the speedy disposition of cases. The Court held:We do not begrudge the zeal that may characterize a public official's prosecution of criminal offenders. We, however, believe that this should not be a license to run roughshod over a citizen's basic constitutional rights, such as due process, or manipulate the law to suit dictatorial tendencies.
	GR No. 180109 2010-07-26	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH 'JOJO' V. GREY NACHURA, J.
[k.] Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners (Rodriguez v. Castelo, L-6374, August 1, 1953).[58]
	GR No. 143591 2010-05-05	TEODORO C. BORLONGAN v. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA PEREZ, J.
Measured against the constitutional mandate and established rulings, there was here a clear abdication of the judicial function and a clear indication that the judge blindly followed the certification of a city prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest with respect to all of the petitioners. The careless inclusion of Mr. Ben Lim, Jr., in the warrant of arrest gives flesh to the bone of contention of petitioners that the instant case is a matter of persecution rather than prosecution.[37] On this ground, this Court may enjoin the criminal cases against petitioners. As a general rule, criminal prosecutions cannot be enjoined. However, there are recognized exceptions which, as summarized in Brocka v. Enrile,[38]are: a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;[39]
	GR NO. 159876 2007-06-26	DINO A. CRUCILLO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN GARCIA, J.
This rule of non-interference is, however, far from absolute. Case law has it that the Court will intervene upon proof of commission of grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman.[31] In other words, the Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is grave abuse of discretion, in which case the certiorari jurisdiction of the Court may exceptionally be invoked pursuant to Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution.[32] Accordingly, where grave abuse of discretion taints the Ombudsman's finding as to the existence of probable cause, the aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.[33] In Cabahug v. People,[34] the Court, citing Brocka v. Enrile,[35] enumerated the circumstances where the courts may interfere with the investigatory power of fiscals and the Ombudsman and thus stay or altogether restrain criminal prosecutions. Among these are:(a) To afford protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
	GR NO. 167025 2005-12-19	HERMINIO C. PRINCIPIO v. OSCAR BARRIENTOS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As a general rule, courts do not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman to determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and, thereafter, to file the corresponding information with the appropriate courts. There are, however, well-recognized exceptions to this rule, such as those enumerated in Brocka v. Enrile,[21] to wit: To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused ...;
	GR No. 108431 2000-07-14	OSCAR G. RARO v. SANDIGANBAYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
On That Date, Petitioner Filed With The Sandiganbayan A Motion To Quash The Information,[37] On The Ground That The Court Did Not Acquire Jurisdiction In View Of Violations Of Accused'S Constitutional Rights During The Preliminary Investigation. He Argued That The Determination Of Probable Cause By The Prosecuting Officer Does Not Preclude The Courts From Demanding Further Proof Thereon. Citing Brocka V. Enrile[38] Where This Court Held That A Sham And Hastily Conducted Preliminary Investigation May Be Lawfully Enjoined, Petitioner Pointed Out The Following As Indicia Of The "Falsity And Hastiness" Of The Proceedings Before The Ombudsman:1. While The Resolution Recommending The Filing Of An Information Was Issued On June 11, 1992, The Information Was Already Prepared On May 19, 1992 Thereby Showing That Said Resolution Was No More Than A Formality. For Petitioner, The Situation Was Akin To "Birth Preced(Ing) Pregnancy."