UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. THE CITY FISCAL OF QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENT.

University of the Philippines versus the City Fiscal of Quezon City

The Case

This is an original petition for prohibition, with a prayer for preliminary injunction, brought by the University of the Philippines and two of its editors against the City Fiscal of Quezon City. The editors had published a scholarly historical article in a University journal, a private complainant charged them with incitement to sedition, and the City Fiscal was about to file the corresponding criminal information. The petitioners asked the Supreme Court to stop him, invoking academic freedom. The case matters because it fixes the general rule that courts will not enjoin a criminal prosecution, and marks the narrow exception to it.

Procedural History

The case began as an original petition in the Supreme Court, not as an appeal from any lower court. There was no trial court ruling and no intermediate appellate ruling to review. The petitioners went directly to the Supreme Court seeking to restrain, prohibit and enjoin the City Fiscal of Quezon City and his assistants from filing any criminal information, and from prosecuting the same, against the two editors. They prayed as well for a preliminary injunction. The Court resolved the petition in a single decision, treating the facts alleged in the petition as the basis for its ruling.

Facts

The University of the Philippines publishes the Philippine Social Sciences and Humanities Review, a publication devoted primarily to recent papers and monographs of scholarly merit in the social sciences and humanities, issued in connection with research and studies in the arts and sciences made in the University. Tomas Fonacier was its editor and Leopoldo Yabes its managing editor. The Review was not for distribution to the public at large. It was confined to the University and its correspondent universities and libraries abroad, with the exception of a few copies sold occasionally to private researchers.

On the occasion of the Golden Jubilee of the University, the Review published, sometime in July 1959, an article entitled The Peasant War in the Philippines, subtitled A Study of the Causes of Social Unrest in the Philippines and An Analysis of the Philippine Political Economy. Two thousand copies of the issue were printed. Five hundred were sent to various correspondent institutions of learning and research abroad, and one thousand five hundred were distributed among faculty members, alumni and students of the University engaged in the study of the social sciences and humanities.

On or about June 7, 1961, Carlos Albert filed a verified complaint with the City Fiscal charging the two editors with incitement to sedition under Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code. A preliminary investigation followed on June 29, 1961. The petitioners alleged that the City Fiscal then threatened, and was about to file, an information against the two editors for acts performed in the publication and circulation of the Golden Jubilee issue. They claimed this would be harassment, an irresponsible, oppressive and arbitrary exercise of public power, an excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, and a direct infringement of the academic freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, inflicting incalculable harm on the academic and research functions of the University.

Issues

• Whether or not, upon the facts alleged in the petition, the courts may enjoin, restrain and prohibit the City Fiscal from filing an information against the two editors for a violation of Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether or not the threatened filing of the information would amount to a use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive or vindictive manner, or would be contrary to the orderly administration of justice, so as to fall within the exception to the general rule.

Applicable Provisions

Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code, the provision under which the complaint was filed, is the offense charged against the editors:

Article 142. Inciting to sedition. — The penaltes of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without taking any direct part in the crime of sedition, should incite others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to the same end.

The charge rests on this provision, and the whole question is whether the City Fiscal may be stopped from prosecuting it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition must fail. It began from the sworn duty of the fiscal: upon the filing of a complaint charging a person with a criminal offense, it is not only his privilege but his sworn duty to conduct an investigation and subsequently to file the corresponding information should the evidence presented sufficiently prove, in his opinion, that a criminal offense had been committed and that the party charged was probably guilty. From this follows the general rule:

Consequently, the general rule in this jurisdiction is that neither an injunction (preliminary or final) nor a writ of prohibition may be issued by the courts to restrain a criminal prosecution except in the extreme case where it is necessary for the courts to do so for the orderly administration of justice or to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive or vindictive manner.

On the second issue, the Court held that the facts alleged did not bring the case within that exception. It could not find its way clear to holding that the filing of the information would be against the orderly administration of justice or would amount to using the strong arm of the law in an oppressive or vindictive manner. To the contrary, if the fiscal finally decided to file the information, the presumption must be that his action was justified by the evidence presented to him in the course of the preliminary investigation already made, there being a presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.

Doctrine

First, the general rule is that neither injunction, preliminary or final, nor prohibition may issue to restrain a criminal prosecution. Second, the exception is an extreme one: the writ may issue only where necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive or vindictive manner. Third, the fiscal's duty to investigate and to file the information, once the evidence in his opinion shows a crime and probable guilt, is sworn, and his action carries the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. The charge here was incitement to sedition under Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code, and the Court required more than a claim of academic freedom to overcome the presumption attending the fiscal's duty.

Disposition

The petition for preliminary injunction and the main petition for prohibition were denied for lack of merit, so the City Fiscal prevailed and remained free to file the information.

Remember This

Memorize the rule: no injunction or prohibition lies to restrain a criminal prosecution, save in the extreme case of orderly administration of justice or the strong arm of the law used oppressively or vindictively. Examiners use this case on the fiscal's sworn duty and the presumption of regularity, and as the counterpoint whenever academic freedom is raised against a threatened prosecution.