When injunction may be issued to restrain criminal prosecution | General Matters | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

WHEN INJUNCTION MAY BE ISSUED TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN THE PHILIPPINES
(A Comprehensive Discussion)

I. GENERAL RULE

As a matter of public policy and consistent with the principle that crimes affect public interest, Philippine courts do not ordinarily issue injunctions to restrain criminal prosecutions. The rationale is twofold:

  1. Separation of Powers: The power to prosecute criminal offenses is primarily lodged in the Executive Department (through the public prosecutors and the Department of Justice). Courts are generally cautioned against encroaching on prosecutorial discretion.

  2. Public Interest in Prosecution: Criminal proceedings are instituted on behalf of the State, which has a primordial interest in the speedy and just resolution of offenses. Restraining prosecution could disrupt the public’s interest in seeing wrongdoing prosecuted without undue delay.

Hence, the default stance is that courts must refrain from issuing injunctive relief against criminal proceedings unless exceptional and compelling circumstances are shown.

II. EXCEPTIONS: WHEN INJUNCTION MAY BE ALLOWED

Despite the general rule, Philippine jurisprudence recognizes limited circumstances where a court may enjoin or restrain a criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court has laid down guidelines that center on exceptional cases. While the precise formulations vary among decisions, they commonly revolve around the following grounds:

  1. Lack of Jurisdiction or Patent Nullity of the Proceedings

    • If the court or tribunal initiating or handling the criminal case has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the person of the accused, or if the charge is patently void (e.g., the alleged acts do not constitute a crime at all).
    • In such instances, continuing with the prosecution constitutes a grave abuse of discretion, justifying the extraordinary remedy of Prohibition (and, in some cases, an injunctive writ) to arrest proceedings that are fundamentally without basis.

  2. Violation of Constitutional Rights

    • Where the prosecution is shown to be a means to harass, oppress, or violate the constitutional rights of the accused—such as the right to due process or the right against double jeopardy—an injunction may be issued to prevent irreparable harm.
    • For instance, if it is obvious from the complaint or the information that no probable cause exists or that the accused is being singled out maliciously (i.e., initiated in bad faith or motivated purely by persecution rather than prosecution), courts have intervened to forestall prosecutorial abuse.

  3. Absence of a Prima Facie Case / Absolutely No Offense Charged

    • When it is evident on the face of the information or from the records that the charge fails to allege facts constituting an offense, no valid criminal prosecution can be pursued.
    • Courts in a certiorari or prohibition proceeding (under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court) may determine whether the prosecutor or the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. If so, an injunction can be used to halt the unwarranted prosecution.

  4. Existence of a Prejudicial Question

    • A prejudicial question is one that arises in a civil case and must be definitively resolved before the criminal action can proceed. It typically involves an issue determinative of guilt or innocence (e.g., issues of ownership, status, or any civil right that, once decided, will effectively decide the criminal liability).
    • In such a scenario, courts can issue an order suspending or restraining the criminal proceedings pending the outcome of the prejudicial question in the civil case.

  5. Other Extraordinary or Compelling Circumstances

    • Philippine courts have, on rare occasions, recognized “extraordinary” or “compelling” circumstances not strictly falling under the first four categories but which nonetheless would result in manifest injustice if the prosecution were allowed to continue unchecked.
    • An example might be where continuing the prosecution would cause irreparable injury to the accused’s constitutional rights or make eventual acquittal practically meaningless (e.g., malicious repeated filing of baseless charges designed purely to harass).

III. LEGAL BASIS & JURISPRUDENTIAL SUPPORT

  1. Rules of Court

    • Rule 58 (Preliminary Injunction), particularly Section 3, lays out the grounds for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Generally, it contemplates civil, administrative, or quasi-judicial proceedings. Restraining criminal prosecution via preliminary injunction is unusual but is not foreclosed if the stringent requirements for injunction are established.
    • Rule 65 (Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus) is often invoked when there is grave abuse of discretion by the public prosecutor or the court. A successful Rule 65 petition can lead to an order effectively stopping (prohibiting) the criminal proceeding. In some instances, the Supreme Court has recognized that an ancillary injunctive relief (TRO or preliminary injunction) may be issued when the main action is one for Prohibition.

  2. Jurisprudence

    • The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the “general rule-exception rule” approach.
    • A leading line of cases (e.g., Almeda v. Court of Appeals, Roberts v. Court of Appeals, among others) reiterates that criminal prosecutions should not be enjoined except under extraordinary circumstances such as where there is a clear case of harassment, or the prosecution is conducted without probable cause and is thus tantamount to persecution.
    • The Court’s pronouncements underscore that merely claiming innocence or raising defenses on the merits does not suffice to invoke the extraordinary remedy of injunction against a criminal prosecution. There must be clear and convincing evidence of a special circumstance (no offense charged, no jurisdiction, double jeopardy, bad faith, etc.).

IV. NATURE OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN CRIMINAL CASES

  • Provisional Remedy: An injunction is generally a provisional remedy available in civil proceedings to prevent irreparable injury or to maintain the status quo.
  • Rigid Application: In criminal cases, the standard for obtaining a preliminary injunction is even more stringent because of the State’s interest in prosecuting crimes.
  • Impact on Due Process: While the accused’s rights are paramount, halting prosecution for reasons short of the recognized exceptions can also infringe upon the interests of the State and the public in effectively addressing criminal acts.

V. PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS

  1. Filing a Petition

    • To restrain an ongoing or impending criminal prosecution, an aggrieved party typically files a special civil action for certiorari and/or prohibition under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutor or the judge.
    • As ancillary relief, the petitioner may pray for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to maintain the status quo while the certiorari or prohibition case is being resolved.

  2. Burden of Proof

    • The petitioner must show a clear legal right to be protected (i.e., that continuing the prosecution violates a constitutional right, is without probable cause, or is under a void proceeding).
    • Allegations must be supported by prima facie evidence or clear documentary proof that the criminal case lacks basis, is pursued in bad faith, or is otherwise covered by an established exception.

  3. Effect of Issuance of Injunction

    • If granted, the court’s injunctive order temporarily suspends or completely restrains the criminal prosecution, depending on the terms and scope of the writ.
    • However, this is interlocutory in nature; it does not equate to an acquittal or a dismissal of the criminal case. It merely halts proceedings pending final determination of the validity of the prosecution.

  4. Possibility of Lifting

    • If the higher court or the issuing court subsequently rules that no grave abuse of discretion was committed, or the recognized exceptions do not apply, the injunction can be lifted or dissolved, and the criminal prosecution will resume.

VI. PRACTICAL POINTERS AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

  1. Avoid Forum-Shopping

    • A defendant or respondent seeking to stop a criminal prosecution must take care to exhaust available remedies and adhere to the rules against forum-shopping. Filing multiple petitions in different courts or tribunals for the same objective may lead to the summary dismissal of all petitions and possible disciplinary sanctions.

  2. Ethical Duty of Counsel

    • Counsel must ensure that a petition to enjoin prosecution is anchored on valid grounds and not merely intended to delay the proceedings. Lawyers have a duty under the Code of Professional Responsibility to refrain from filing groundless, sham, or dilatory petitions.

  3. Coordination with Prosecutorial Authorities

    • Before resorting to injunctive remedies, it is often prudent to seek reconsideration or review from higher prosecutorial authorities (e.g., the Office of the City Prosecutor, Provincial Prosecutor, or the Department of Justice) if the basis for restraining the prosecution is the absence of probable cause or some factual deficiency.

  4. Respecting the Rights of the Accused and the Interests of the State

    • While the accused has every right to protect constitutional guarantees against malicious or unjust prosecutions, courts and litigants must balance such right against the State’s prerogative to punish criminal acts. Lawyers must remember that the prosecutorial arm of the government represents the interests of society at large.

VII. KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • Baseline Principle: Courts do not lightly interfere with the prosecution of crimes.
  • Narrow Exceptions: Injunctive relief in criminal cases is strictly confined to specific instances—lack of jurisdiction, violation of fundamental rights, absence of an offense, or other extraordinary circumstances.
  • Legal Remedy via Rule 65: The usual vehicle is a special civil action for certiorari/prohibition, where injunction (or TRO) may be prayed for as ancillary relief.
  • High Threshold: The applicant for injunction must demonstrate clear legal right and grave or irreparable damage if prosecution proceeds.
  • Public Policy: Any attempt to stop a criminal case must be justified by overriding considerations of justice and fair play; mere allegations of innocence or defenses on the merits do not suffice.

Final Word

Injunctions against criminal prosecutions in the Philippines are the exception rather than the rule. The Courts prioritize the unimpeded administration of criminal justice. Nonetheless, where grave abuse of discretion exists—such as patent illegality of the charge, total absence of probable cause, or malicious prosecution—judicial intervention is available to protect constitutional rights and to prevent irreparable harm. Lawyers and litigants must be meticulous in ensuring that their grounds are solidly anchored on law and jurisprudence, balancing individual rights with the broader public interest in the prosecution of crimes.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login