This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
GR No. 92163 (1990) By RIVERA FACTS: This case, together with the case filed by the Spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio (GR No. 92164), was consolidated and decided with the equally applicable principles because they are virtually identical in factual milieu. Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile, spouses Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan were arrested by the team of NBI Director Alfredo Lim in the strength of a warrant by Hon. Jaime Salazar. The warrant issued was based on the information signed and filed by the respondent prosecutors, charging those arrested persons with the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murders. Senator Enrile was held overnight at NBI Headquarters on Taft, without bail, none recommended in the information and fixed in the warrant of arrest. The following day, he was brought to Camp Karingal and the same time, he filed a petition for habeas corpus for alleged deprivation of constitutional rights: (a) held to answer for criminal offenses which does not exist in the statue books; (b) chared with a criminal offense in an information for which no complaint was initially filed or preliminary investigation was conducted, hence was denied due process; (c) denied his right to bail; and (d) 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. The Supreme Court has maintained that People v. Hernandez (as applying to make rebellion absorb all other offenses committed in his course, whether or not necessary to its commission or in furtherance thereof) and is applicable in the said case. ISSUE: right to bail Whether or not the petition for habeas corpus is the proper course of action to invoke the
RULING: No, since the offense to which Enrile and the other were charged is the crime of simple rebellion (punishable by not exceeding with twelve (12) years of prision mayor and a fine of P20,000, therefore, it is bailable), the correct course was for the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court to file a petition to be admitted to bail, claiming a right to bail per se by reason of the weakness of the evidence against him. If denied, the Supreme Court is not the immediate remedy, but applying to the Court of Appeals if appropriate relief is available there. Even if the theory that the information charges a non-existent crime or, charges more than one offense, it would not excuse or justify improper choice of remedies, because the obvious recourse would have been a motion to quash brought in the criminal action before the respondent Judge. Therefore, the petitioner is charged with simple rebellion, entitled with bail before final conviction as a matter of right, the Supreme Court’s resolution (giving petitioner provisional liberty) is remanded to the respondent Judge to fix the amount of bail to be posted by the petitioners.