JUAN PONCE ENRILE, petitioner

v.
JUDGE JAIME SALAZAR, respondent
G.R. No. 92163
June 5, 1990

Jurisprudence: “Stare decisis et non quieta movere” (follow past precedents and do not
disturb what has been settled.

Facts:
Petitioner Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by law enforcement officers charging him and Mr. and
Mrs. Panlillo and Honasan the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly
committed during the period of the failed coup attempt. The warrant was issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar
of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Senator Enrile, through counsel, filed the petition for habeas
corpus herein alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional rights.

Issue:
Whether or not the court should affirm the doctrine enunciated in the case of People vs.
Hernandez

Ruling:
Enrile filed for habeas corpus because he was denied bail although ordinarily the charge for
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 murders. 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 the rebellion is absorbed hence he should be entitled for bail. The SC however noted
that a petition for Habeas Corpus was not the proper remedy so as to avail of bail. He should have
exhausted all other efforts before petitioning for habeas corpus. The Hernandez ruling is still valid. All
other crimes in carrying out rebellion should be absorbed. The SC noted , however, that there may be
need to modify rebellion law. Considering the essence of rebellion has been lost and that being used by
a lot of opportunist to attempt to grab power.

Miko Allan B. Tarrayo JD-1