Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 450 views

    Enrile V Salazar

    Uploaded by

    Lotsee Elauria
    1) Senator Enrile was arrested on charges of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder stemming from his alleged involvement in a failed coup attempt in 1990. He filed a petition for habeas corpus. 2) The issue was whether the Hernandez ruling that rebellion absorbs other crimes committed during or in furtherance of rebellion should be abandoned. 3) The Supreme Court voted 11-2 to maintain the Hernandez ruling, finding that Enrile and others were charged with rebellion as well as common crimes committed during but not in furtherance of the rebellion, and thus the rebellion charge absorbed the other crimes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Enrile V Salazar

    Uploaded by

    Lotsee Elauria
    450 views2 pages
    1) Senator Enrile was arrested on charges of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder stemming from his alleged involvement in a failed coup attempt in 1990. He filed a petition for habeas corpus. 2) The issue was whether the Hernandez ruling that rebellion absorbs other crimes committed during or in furtherance of rebellion should be abandoned. 3) The Supreme Court voted 11-2 to maintain the Hernandez ruling, finding that Enrile and others were charged with rebellion as well as common crimes committed during but not in furtherance of the rebellion, and thus the rebellion charge absorbed the other crimes.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Enrile v Salazar

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Senator Enrile was arrested on charges of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder stemming from his alleged involvement in a failed coup attempt in 1990. He filed a petition for habeas corpus. 2) The issue was whether the Hernandez ruling that rebellion absorbs other crimes committed during or in furtherance of rebellion should be abandoned. 3) The Supreme Court voted 11-2 to maintain the Hernandez ruling, finding that Enrile and others were charged with rebellion as well as common crimes committed during but not in furtherance of the rebellion, and thus the rebellion charge absorbed the other crimes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    450 views2 pages

    Enrile V Salazar

    Uploaded by

    Lotsee Elauria
    1) Senator Enrile was arrested on charges of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder stemming from his alleged involvement in a failed coup attempt in 1990. He filed a petition for habeas corpus. 2) The issue was whether the Hernandez ruling that rebellion absorbs other crimes committed during or in furtherance of rebellion should be abandoned. 3) The Supreme Court voted 11-2 to maintain the Hernandez ruling, finding that Enrile and others were charged with rebellion as well as common crimes committed during but not in furtherance of the rebellion, and thus the rebellion charge absorbed the other crimes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    92163 June 5, 1990


    IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS. JUAN PONCE
    ENRILE, petitioner vs. JUDGE JAIME SALAZAR (Presiding Judge of the Regional
    Trial Court of Quezon City [Br. 103], et al, respondents.
    FACTS
    On February 27, 1990, Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by
    officers led by Director Alfredo Lim on the strength of a warrant issued by Hon. Jaime
    Salazar of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The warrant had issued on an
    information 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 without bail. The following morning, February 28, 1990, he was brought to
    Camp Tomas Karingal in Quezon City. On the same date, Senator Enrile, through
    counsel, filed the petition for habeas corpus. The Court issued the writ prayed for,
    returnable March 5, 1990 and set the plea for hearing on March 6, 1990. The Solicitor
    General distinguished between the complex crime ("delito complejo") arising from an
    offense being a necessary means for committing another, which is referred to in the
    second clause of Article 48, Revised Penal Code, and is the subject of the Hernandez
    ruling, and the compound crime ("delito compuesto") arising from a single act
    constituting two or more grave or less grave offenses referred to in the first clause of the
    same paragraph, with which Hernandez was not concerned and to which, therefore, it
    should not apply. Enrile and Co. were charged in the information on the occasion, but
    not in furtherance, of rebellion. Hernandez ruling charged murders and other common
    crimes committed as a necessary means for the commission of rebellion.
    ISSUE
    W/N Hernandez ruling (rebellion absorbs other crimes) must be abandoned, and hold
    that under Art 48, rebellion may be complexed with other crimes
    W/N Hernandez ruling must apply only to offenses in furtherance, or as a necessary
    means for the commission of, rebellion, but not to acts committed in the course of a
    rebellion which also constitute common crimes of a grave or less grave character
    RULING SC
    The Court voted 11-2 that the Hernandez ruling be maintained (the two justices wanted
    it re-examined). The view was reinforced by the Presidents repeal of PD 942 of the
    former regime which precisely sought to nullify or neutralize Hernandez, by enacting a

    new provision, Art 142-A of the RPC, to the effect that when by reason, or on the
    occasion, of any of the crimes penalized in this Chapter (Chapter I of Title 3, which
    includes rebellion), which constitute offenses upon which graver penalties are imposed
    by law are committed, the penalty for the most serious offense in its maximum period
    shall be imposed upon the offender. (EO 187, issued June 5, 1987) In thus acting, the
    President by legislative fiat, reinstated Hernandez as the binding doctrine with the effect
    of law. Hernandez remains the binding doctrine operating to prohibit the occasion
    thereof, either as a means to its commission or as an unintended effect of an activity
    that constitutes rebellion.
    Thus, the questioned Information must be read as charging simple rebellion only.

    You might also like