ENRILE v SALZAR (1990)
of probable cause has not been complied with.
[J. Narvasa]
Summary and Doctrine
This case is a Petition for habeas corpus. Enrile was
charged with rebellion with murder and multiple
frustrated murder, contrary to the Hernandez doctrine.
The Court has ruled in People vs Hernandez, that
rebellion may not be complexed with other offenses
committed on the occasion thereof,hence there is no
crime of rebellion with muder and or frustrated murder
only simple rebellion which is a bailable offense
I. FACTS:
In the afternoon of February 27, 1990, Senate Minority Floor
Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by law enforcement
officers led by Director Alfredo Lim of the National Bureau of
Investigation on the strength of a warrant issued by Hon.
Jaime Salazar of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
Branch 103, in Criminal Case No. 9010941.
The warrant had issued on an information signed and earlier
that day filed by a panel of prosecutors composed of Senior
State Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe, State Prosecutor
Ferdinand R. Abesamis and Assistant City Prosecutor
Eulogio Mananquil, Jr., charging Senator Enrile, the spouses
Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan with
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 on Taft Avenue, Manila, without bail, none
having been recommended in the information and none fixed
in the arrest warrant. The following morning, February 28,
1990, 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.
On the same date of February 28, 1990, Senator Enrile,
through counsel, filed the petition for habeas corpus herein
(which was followed by a supplemental petition filed on
March 2, 1990), alleging that he was deprived of his
constitutional rights.
He insists that there is no such crime as rebellion with
murder and multiple frustrated murder. Enrile invoked the
ruling in the landmark case of People vs Hernandez where it
was ruled that rebellion cannot be complexed with common
crimes such as murder; as such, the proper crime that
should have been charged against him is simple rebellion –
which is bailable.
Enrile also questioned the regularity of the issuance of the
warrant of arrest against him. He claimed that it only took
Judge Salazar one hour and twenty minutes (from the
raffling of the case to him) to issue the warrant. Enrile
claimed that such period is so short that it was impossible for
the judge to have been able to examine the voluminous
record of the case from the prosecution’s office – that being,
the constitutional provision that a judge may only issue a
warrant of arrest after personally determining the existence
For the prosecution, the Solicitor General argued that the
Hernandez ruling should be abandoned and that it should be
ruled that rebellion cannot absorb more serious crimes like
murder.
II. ISSUES:
Whether or not the Hernandez ruling should be
abandoned.
Whether or not Judge Salazar personally
determined probable cause in the case at bar.
III. RATIO:
1. No, the said case is still good law. The Supreme
Court also noted that there was actually a previous law (P.D.
942) which sought to abandon the Hernandez doctrine. The
said law provided that graver crimes may not be complexed
with rebellion. However, President Corazon Aquino repealed
said law (by virtue of the power granted to her by the 1986
Freedom Constitution). That being, the Hernandez doctrine,
which reflects the rebellion law under the Revised Penal
Code, still stands. The courts cannot change this because
courts can only interpret laws. Only Congress can change
the rebellion law (which the SC suggested in order to
strengthen the rebellion law). But as it stands, Enrile is
correct, there is no such crime as rebellion with murder.
Common crimes such as murder are absorbed. He can only
be charged with rebellion – which is bailable.
2. Yes. There is nothing irregular on the fact that Judge
Salazar only took an hour and twenty minutes to issue the
warrant from the time the case was raffled to him despite the
fact that the prosecution transmitted quite a voluminous
record from the preliminary investigation it conducted. It is
sufficient that the judge follows established procedure by
personally evaluating the report and the supporting
documents submitted by the prosecutor. Just because Judge
Salazar had what some might consider only a relatively brief
period within which to comply with that duty, gives no reason
to assume that he had not, or could not have, so complied;
nor does that single circumstance suffice to overcome the
legal presumption that official duty has been regularly
performed.
IV. DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, 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 and Erlinda 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 petitioners being merely
provisional in character, the proceedings in both cases are
ordered REMANDED to the respondent Judge to fix the
amount of bail to be posted by the petitioners. Once bail is
fixed by said respondent for any of the petitioners, the
corresponding bail bond flied with this Court shall become
functus oficio. No pronouncement as to costs.