PONCE V SALAZAR

Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested ,by virtue of a
warrant ,by law enforcement officers led by Director of the National Bureau of
Investigation . Such arrest was due to the crime of rebellion with murder and
multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during the period of the failed
coup attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990. Senator Enrile was
taken to and held overnight at the NBI headquarters and was not permitted to
apply for bail. Eventually, he was brought to Camp Tomas Karingal in Quezon
City where he was given over to the custody of the Superintendent of the
Northern Police District, Brig. Gen. Edgardo Dula Torres.

Senator Enrile, through counsel, filed the petition for habeas corpus and his
petition includes the fact that he was held to answer for criminal offense which
does not exist in the statute books and was denied his right to bail.

In other words, Enrile contended that he be charged of simple rebellion only

pursuant to the jurisprudence on the case of Hernandez.

However, the Solicitor General filed a consolidated return which had been
contemporaneously but separately filed by two of Senator Enrile's co-accused,
the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and raised similar questions.The
return insisted that the petitioners' case does not fall within the Hernandez
ruling because-and this is putting it very simply-the information
in Hernandez charged murders and other common crimes committed as a
necessary means for the commission of rebellion, whereas the information
against Sen. Enrile et al.charged murder and frustrated murder committed on
the occasion, but not in furtherance, of rebellion.

Issue: Whether or not the group of Enrile is liable for simple rebellion only and
entitled to apply for bail.

Held:Yes. The court ruled for the adoption of the Hernandez ruling.
The Court reiterates that based on the doctrine enunciated in People vs.
Hernandez, the questioned information filed against petitioners Juan Ponce
Enrile and the spouses Rebecco andErlinda Panlilio must be read as charging
simple rebellion only, hence said petitioners are entitled to bail, before final
conviction, as a matter of right. The Court's earlier grant of bail to
petitionersbeing merely provisional in character, the proceedings in both
cases are ordered remanded tothe respondent Judge to fix the amount of
bail to be posted by the petitioners. Once bail is fixedby said respondent for
any of the petitioners, the corresponding bail bond flied with this Courtshall
become functus oficio.

The crimes of murder and multiple frustrated murders are absorbed by the
crime of rebellion.

Article 48 of our Penal Code cannot be applied in the case at bar. If murder were not complexed with
rebellion, and the two crimes were punished separately (assuming that this could be done), the
following penalties would be imposable upon the movant, namely: (1) for the crime of rebellion, a
fine not exceeding P20,000 and prision mayor, in the corresponding period, depending upon the
modifying circumstances present, but never exceeding 12 years of prision mayor, and (2) for the
crime of murder, reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, depending upon the modifying
circumstances present. in other words, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, the extreme
penalty could not be imposed upon him. However, under Article 48 said penalty would have to be
meted out to him, even in the absence of a single aggravating circumstance. Thus, said provision, if
construed in conformity with the theory of the prosecution, would be unfavorable to the movant.

Upon the other hand, said Article 48 was enacted for the purpose of favoring the culprit, not of
sentencing him to a penalty more severe than that which would be proper if the several acts
performed by him were punished separately.