You are on page 1of 4

Juan Ponce Enrile vs Judge Salazar

Habeas Corpus – Right to Bail – Rebellion – SC Cannot Change Law
In February 1990, Sen Enrile was arrested. He was charged together with Mr. & Mrs. Panlilio, and Honasan for the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder which allegedly occurred during their failed coup attempt. Enrile was then brought to Camp Karingal. Enrile later filed for the habeas corpus alleging that the crime being charged against him is nonexistent. That he was charged with a criminal offense in an information for which no complaint was initially filed or preliminary investigation was conducted, hence was denied due process; denied his right to bail; and arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant issued without the judge who issued it first having personally determined the existence of probable cause. ISSUE: Whether or not the court should affirm the Hernandez ruling. HELD: Enrile filed for habeas corpus because he was denied bail although ordinarily a charge of rebellion would entitle one for bail. The crime of rebellion charged against him however is complexed with murder and multiple frustrated murders – the intention of the prosecution was to make rebellion in its most serious form so as to make the penalty thereof in the maximum. The SC ruled that there is no such crime as Rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder. What Enrile et al can be charged of would be Simple Rebellion because other crimes such as murder or all those that may be necessary to the commission of rebellion is absorbed hence he should be entitiled for bail. The SC however noted that a petition for habeas corpus was not the proper remedy so as to avail of bail. The proper step that should have been taken was for Enrile to file a petition to be admitted for bail. He should have exhausted all other efforts before petitioning for habeas corpus. The Hernandez ruling is still valid. All other crimes committed in carrying out rebellion are deemed absorbed. The SC noted, however, that there may be a need to modify the rebellion law. Considering that the essence of rebellion has been lost and that it is being used by a lot of opportunists to attempt to grab power.

What Enrile et al can be charged of would be Simple Rebellion because other crimes such as murder or all those that may be necessary to the commission of rebellion is absorbed hence he should be entitiled for bail. Panlilio. He was charged together with Mr.” . and what is needed lies beyond interpretation. and arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant issued without the judge who issued it first having personally determined the existence of probable cause. That he was charged with a criminal offense in an information for which no complaint was initially filed or preliminary investigation was conducted. Thus SC said “There is an apparent need to restructure the law on rebellion. Enrile later filed for the habeas corpus alleging that the crime being charged against him is non existent. The proper step that should have been taken was for Enrile to file a petition to be admitted for bail. The SC however noted that a petition for habeas corpus was not the proper remedy so as to avail of bail. & Mrs. Sen Enrile was arrested. denied his right to bail. hence was denied due process. Enrile was then brought to Camp Karingal. The crime of rebellion charged against him however is complexed with murder and multiple frustrated murders – theintention of the prosecution was to make rebellion in its most serious form so as to make the penalty thereof in the maximum. for it can only interpret the law as it stands at any given time. The SC further notes that there is a need to restructure the law on rebellion as it is being used apparently by others as a tool to disrupt the peace and espouse violence. and Honasan for the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder which allegedly occurred during their failed coup attempt. Congress will perceive the need for promptly seizing the initiative in this matter. Hopefully. which is properly within its province. He should have exhausted all other efforts before petitioning for habeas corpus. ISSUE: Whether or Enrile’s arrest is valid.Enrile vs Salazar Constitutional Law – Political Question – Restriction to the exercise of judicial power In February 1990. The Court has no power to effect such change. so that it cannot be conveniently utilized as the umbrella for every sort of illegal activity undertaken in its name. HELD: Enrile filed for habeas corpus because he was denied bail although ordinarily a charge of rebellion would entitle one for bail. either to raise the penalty therefor or to clearly define and delimit the other offenses to be considered as absorbed thereby. The SC ruled that there is no such crime as Rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder. The SC can only act w/in the bounds of the law.

Jr. 1990. Jaime Salazar of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch 103. even in the absence of a single aggravating . No. On the same date of February 28. Issue: (a) Whether the petitioner has committed complex crimes (delito compleio) arising from an offense being a necessary means for committing another. 1990. 1990 Facts: In the afternoon of February 27.. through counsel. Trampe. and the two crimes were punished separately (assuming that this could be done). Manila. in the corresponding period. depending upon the modifying circumstances present. Gen. 1990). State Prosecutor Ferdinand R. Edgardo Dula Torres. Abesamis and Assistant City Prosecutor Eulogio Mananquil. namely: (1) for the crime of rebellion. but never exceeding 12 years of prision mayor. Senator Enrile. If murder were not complexed with rebellion. none having been recommended in the information and none fixed in the arrest warrant. the following penalties would be imposable upon the movant. in the absence of aggravating circumstances. which is referred to in the second clause of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code? Held: There is one other reason and a fundamental one at that why Article 48 of the Penal Code cannot be applied in the case at bar. filed the petition for habeas corpus herein (which was followed by a supplemental petition filed on March 2. Senator Enrile was taken to and held overnight at the NBI headquarters on Taft Avenue. a fine not exceeding P20. 1990. Brig. 92163 June 5.R. alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional rights. However. under Article 48 said penalty would have to be meted out to him. 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. In other words. The following morning. in Criminal Case No. without bail. the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio. February 28. reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. 9010941. charging Senator Enrile. 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.000 and prision mayor. 1990. and (2) for the crime of murder.Enrile vs Salazar G. the extreme penalty could not be imposed upon him. 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. depending upon the modifying circumstances present. 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.

Once bail is fixed by said respondent for any of the petitioners. before final conviction. Thus. the questioned information filed against petitioners Juan Ponce Enrile and the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio must be read as charging simple rebellion only. and of the logical and necessary corollary that the information against him should be considered as charging only the crime of simple rebellion. the proceedings in both cases are ordered remanded to the respondent Judge to fix the amount of bail to be posted by the petitioners. But the question remains: Given the facts from which this case arose. . must therefore be dismissed as a mere flight of rhetoric. that must now be accepted as a correct proposition. Petitioner finally claims that he was denied the right to bail. which is bailable before conviction. The Court reiterates that based on the doctrine enunciated in People vs. The correct course was for petitioner to invoke that jurisdiction by filing a petition to be admitted to bail. claiming a right to bail per se by reason of the weakness of the evidence against him. The Court's earlier grant of bail to petitioners being merely provisional in character. No pronouncement as to costs. In the light of the Court's reaffirmation of Hernandez as applicable to petitioner's case. hence said petitioners are entitled to bail. the information does indeed charge the petitioner with a crime defined and punished by the Revised Penal Code: simple rebellion. as a matter of right. if construed in conformity with the theory of the prosecution. would be unfavorable to the movant. not without first applying to the Court of Appeals if appropriate relief was also available there. said provision. The original jurisdiction to grant or deny bail rested with said respondent.circumstance. Hernandez. was a petition for habeas corpus in this Court the appropriate vehicle for asserting a right to bail or vindicating its denial? The criminal case before the respondent Judge was the normal venue for invoking the petitioner's right to have provisional liberty pending trial and judgment. Read in the context of Hernandez. and even then. the corresponding bail bond flied with this Court shall become functus oficio. The plaint of petitioner's counsel that he is charged with a crime that does not exist in the statute books. while technically correct so far as the Court has ruled that rebellion may not be complexed with other offenses committed on the occasion thereof. Only after that remedy was denied by the trial court should the review jurisdiction of this Court have been invoked.

U^Ua_`SZUWa__SV\^[b_[ZXU[Z_`^aWVZU[ZX[^` c``W`W[^ [X`W\^[_WUa`[Zc[aV TWaZXSb[^STW`[`W[bSZ` W\SZ`[X\W``[ZW^ _U[aZ_W`S`W_US^YWVc`SU^W`S`V[W_Z[`W _`Z`W_`S`a`WT[[_ cW `WUZUS  U[^^WU` _[ XS^ S_ `W [a^`S_ ^aWV `S` ^WTW[Z S  Z[`TW U[\W WV c` [`W^ [XXWZ_W_ U[``WV [Z `W [UUS_[Z `W^W[X a_` `W^WX[^W TW V___WV S_ S W^W XY` [X ^W`[^U WSVZ`WU[Z`W `[X W^ZSZVW `WZX[^S`[ZV[W_ZVWWVUS^YW`W\W``[ZW^c`SU^WVWXZWV SZV\aZ_WVT `WWb_WV WZS[VW_\W^WTW[Z W``[ZW^ XZS  US_ `S`W cS_ VWZWV`W^Y` `[TS Z`W Y` [X`W [a^` _ ^WSXX^S`[Z[X W^ZSZVW  S_ S\\USTW `[ \W``[ZW^ _ US_W SZV [X `W [YUS SZV ZWUW__S^  U[^[S^  `S` `W ZX[^S`[Z SYSZ_`  _[aV TW U[Z_VW^WV S_ US^YZY [Z  `W U^W [X _\W ^WTW[Z cU _ TSSTWTWX[^WU[ZbU`[Z`S`a_`Z[cTWSUUW\`WVS_SU[^^WU`\^[\[_`[Za``W]aW_`[Z^WSZ_ bWZ`WXSU`_X^[cU`_US_WS^[_WcS_S\W``[ZX[^STWS_U[^\a_Z`_[a^``WS\\^[\^S`W bWUW X[^ S__W^`ZY S ^Y` `[ TS [^ bZVUS`ZY `_ VWZS W U^ZS US_W TWX[^W `W ^W_\[ZVWZ` aVYW cS_`WZ[^SbWZaWX[^Zb[ZY`W\W``[ZW^ _^Y``[SbW \^[b_[ZSTW^` \WZVZY`^S SZV aVYWZ` W [^YZS a^_VU`[Z `[ Y^SZ` [^ VWZ  TS ^W_`WV c` _SV ^W_\[ZVWZ` W U[^^WU` U[a^_WcS_X[^\W``[ZW^`[Zb[W`S`a^_VU`[ZT XZYS\W``[Z`[TWSV``WV`[TSUSZYS ^Y``[TS \W^ _W T  ^WS_[Z [X `W cWSZW__ [X `W WbVWZUW SYSZ_`  .

Z  SX`W^`S` ^WWV  cS_ VWZWVT `W`^SU[a^`_[aV`W ^WbWca^_VU`[Z[X`_[a^`SbWTWWZZb[WVSZV WbWZ`WZ Z[`c`[a`X^_`S\\ ZY`[`W[a^`[X\\WS_XS\\^[\^S`W^WWXcS_S_[SbSSTW`W^W W [a^` ^W`W^S`W_ `S` TS_WV [Z `W V[U`^ZW WZaZUS`WV Z W[\W b_ W^ZSZVW  `W ]aW_`[ZWV ZX[^S`[Z XWV SYSZ_` \W``[ZW^_ aSZ [ZUW Z^W SZV `W _\[a_W_ WTWUU[ SZV ^ZVS SZ[ a_` TW ^WSV S_ US^YZY _\W ^WTW[Z [Z  WZUW _SV \W``[ZW^_ S^W WZ``WV `[ TS TWX[^W XZS U[ZbU`[ZS_SS``W^[X^Y`W[a^` _WS^W^Y^SZ`[XTS`[\W``[ZW^_TWZYW^W \^[b_[ZSZ US^SU`W^`W\^[UWWVZY_ZT[`US_W_S^W[^VW^WV^WSZVWV`[`W^W_\[ZVWZ` aVYW`[X `WS[aZ` [XTS`[TW\[_`WVT `W\W``[ZW^_.

ZUWTS_X WVT _SV^W_\[ZVWZ`X[^SZ [X`W\W``[ZW^_`W U[^^W_\[ZVZYTST[ZVXWVc``_[a^`_STWU[WXaZU`a_[XU[ [\^[Z[aZUWWZ`S_`[U[_`_ .