006 People v. Joseph Jojo V. Grey, et al. (IGNACIO) Motion for Inhibition of Judge Bandal.
nhibition of Judge Bandal. Judge Bandal inhibited himself but
26 July 2010 | Nachura, J. | When can injunction be granted in criminal cases
PETITIONER: People, through the OSG (Office of the Solicitor-General)
RESPONDENTS: Joseph Jojo v. Grey, Francis B. Grey, and Court of Appeals-
Cebu City, Eighteenth Division
SUMMARY: In 2006, Joseph Grey, the former Mayor of San Jorge, Samar; his
son Francis, and several others, were implicated in the murder of Rolando
Diocton, a municipal government employee. Initially the trial court judge found
no probable cause and did not issue warrants. The Prosecution moved to inhibit
the judge, who was then replaced by Judge Roberto A. Navidad. Judge Navidad
found probable cause and issued warrants of arrest on all the respondents
except one of their co-accused. The Respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari
and Prohibition in the CA, alleging a grave abuse of discretion by Judge
Navidad in finding probable cause and issuing warrants of arrest, alleging that
these charges were politically motivated and were meant to harass them right
before the upcoming May 2007 elections. The CA issued a TRO, and
eventually rendered a Decision which made the TRO a Permanent
Injunction. The CA also set aside the warrants of arrest and dismissed the
criminal case without prejudice.
DOCTRINE: Injunction will NOT enjoin a criminal prosecution, because
public interest requires criminal acts be immediately investigated for the
protection of society. There are, however, several exceptions laid down by the
Supreme Court as to this rule, but they are not applicable to this case.
FACTS:
1. This is a petition to nullify the CA-Cebu Decision on the case “Mayor
Joseph Jojo V. Grey and Francis B. Grey v. Hon. Roberto A. Navidad,
Presiding Judge of RTC Calbayog City, Branch 32, and the People of the
Philippines.”
2. On 11 December 2006, an information for murder was filed against Joseph
Grey, former Mayor of San Jorge, Samar; his son Francis, and 2 others for
the death of Rolando Diocton, a municipal government employee.
3. Respondents Grey et. Al filed a Petition for Review with the Secretary of
Justice. Meanwhile, the RTC Judge Bandal DENIED the Prosecution's
motion for issuance of a warrant of arrest, finding the Prosecution's
evidence insufficient.
4. The Prosecution filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and a
DENIED the MR.
5. The Provincial Prosecutor filed a petition for change venue in the Supreme
Court, presenting a letter from the victim's wife, where she expressed fear
for her life and that of other witnesses.
6. On 24 January 2007, SOJ dismissed the Petition for Review by the
Respondents. The MR was likewise denied on 30 January 2007.
7. The Prosecution subsequently withdrew their petition to change venue, due
to financial difficulties in moving the witnesses. Respondents opposed this
motion, praying that proceedings be suspended until after the May 2007
elections.
8. Respondents then instituted their own petition for change venue, alleging
that the judge who took over the case (Judge Navidad) was a pawn in the
political persecution allegedly being staged against them. Said petition was
denied on 22 August 2007.
9. Meanwhile, on 20 February 2007, J. Navidad found probable cause and
issued warrants of arrest on all the respondents except one of their co-
accused.
10. Respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the CA,
alleging grave abuse of discretion by J. Navidad in issuing the 20 February
2007 order. They alleged that this was political harassment concocted by
their political opponents. They pointed out that the charges were instituted
two months after Joseph Grey declared his intentions to challenge a former
ally, Congressman Reynaldo Uy. Likewise, they alleged that one of the
witnesses, Urien Moloboco was the subject of an Alias Warrant of Arrest for
murder issued by RTC Gandara, Samar, and was a fugitive of law. He was
not arrested when he executed an affidavit for the Prosecution. (** I think
they were trying to say na, san ba nila napulot tong kriminal na to
malamang gawa gawa pa kwento nyan)
11. On 13 March 2007, the CA ISSUED A TRO, and on 8 May 2007, the CA
rendered a Decision making the TRO permanent. The CA ordered the
warrant of arrests be set aside, and the criminal case be dismissed without
prejudice.
12. The CA decided that J. Navidad failed to observe the constitutional mandate
of judges to personally determine the existence of probable cause, as
nowhere in the assailed Order did Navidad he make a personal assessment
of the evidence before him and the justification for finding probable cause.
The CA also ruled that the Information was inconsistent with the allegations
in the submitted affidavits. The Information charged the Respondents as
principals by direct participation, but the complaint-affidavit and supporting
affidavits uniformly alleged that the Respondents were not at the scene of
the shooting. The CA also found that the allegations in these affidavits were
insufficient to establish probable cause. The MR was denied 8 October
2007. Hence this petition for review.
ISSUE/s:
1. Whether or not the TRO and Permanent Injunction was proper, considering
that the Respondents had not shown any clear and unmistakable right to
such relief, when there were other remedies available (apply for bail, or
move to quash the Info) – NO, the TRO was not proper. Injunction will
not lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution.

RULING: CA Decision REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Permanent Injunction

is DISSOLVED and the RTC Order is REINSTATED.

RATIO:
1. It is an established doctrine that injunction will NOT lie to enjoin a criminal
prosecution because public interest requires that criminal acts be
immediately investigated and prosecuted for the protection of society.
2. There are exceptions to this rule, as laid down in several cases:
a. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the
accused
b. When necessary for the orderly administation of justice or to avoid
oppression or multiplicity of actions
c. When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub-judice
d. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority
e. When the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or
regulation
f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent
g. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense
h. Where there is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust
for vengeance
j. Where there is clearly no prima facie evidence against the accused
and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied
k. Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to
prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of the petitioners
3. The allegation that the filing of the charges is politically motivated
CANNOT justify the prohibition of a criminal prosecution if there is
otherwise evidence to support the charges.
4. To establish political harassment, the respondents must prove that the
public prosecutor, not just the private complainant, acted in bad faith in
prosecuting the case; or has lent himself to a scheme that could have no
other purpose than to place respondents in contempt and disrepute. It must
be shown that the complainant possesses the power and the influence to
control the prosecution of cases. Respondents have no other evidence to
rely upon except their self-serving claims. A full-blown trial is required in
order to determine the truth.