SUBJECT:

TOPIC:
Date Made:
Digest Maker:
CRIM2
Art. 1134
5 February 2016
Cams
CASE NAME: ENRILE v SALAZAR
PONENTE: ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NARVASA
Case Date: 5 JUNE 1990
Case Summary:
This particular case does not discuss whether or not Enrile and co. are guilty of rebellion. This
decision involves an exposition, if you may, by the Court with regard to the petitioners
contentions attached to their petition.
Enrile was arrested by NBI officers led by Director Alfredo Lim. Such arrest was said to be
grounded upon a warrant issued by respondent judge based on an information signed and filed
by a panel of prosecutors, carrying with it an accusation that petitioner, together with the Panlilio
spouses, and Gringo Honasan, is guilty of rebellion with murder, and multiple frustrated murder.
He was brought to the NBI headquarters, and there he was detained overnight. He was released
the next day. Immediately after said release, he filed a petition for habeas corpus, and such is
the basis of this decision.
Rule of Law:

The Hernandez doctrine (rebellion is a simple crime) is still good law.

the murders, arsons and robberies described therein are mere ingredients of the crime
of rebellion allegedly committed by said defendants, as means necessary (4) for the
perpetration of said offense of rebellion

Art. 134
Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection How committed. The crime of rebellion or
insurrection is committed by rising and taking arms against the Government for the
purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of
the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other
armed forces, or depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of
any of their powers or prerogatives.

Detailed Facts:
On February 27, 1990, Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by NBI officers, led by then Director
Lim. Such arrest was anchored on a warrant released by Judge Salazar. The said warrant was
issued due to an information signed, and earlier that day, filed by a panel of prosecutors,
charging Enrile, Honasan, and the Panlilio spouses with the crime of rebellion with murder, and
multiple frustrated murder.
Senator Enrile then was taken to and held overnight at the NBI headquarters, without bail,
for none was recommended in the information and none was fixed in the arrest warrant. The
following morning, February 28, 1990, he was brought to Camp Tomas Karingal in Quezon City
where he was transferred to the custody of Brig. Gen. Edgardo Dula Torres.
Immediately after his release, Enrile, through counsel, filed the petition for habeas corpus
with the SC, alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional rights in being, or having been:
(a) held to answer for criminal offense which does not exist in the statute books;
(b) 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;
(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.

BLOCK D 2019 1

The Court granted the writ effective until the start of the plea hearing. The petitioners, upon the
commencement of the trial, raised their contentions, which in turn, compelled the Court to pen
this particular decision.
Issues:
In relation to the Hernandez doctrine
1. W/N the doctrine established by Hernandez should be abandoned
2. W/N Hernandez is applicable only to offenses committed 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 grave or less grave
character (this issue asks if rebellion can become a complex crime, making RPC 48
applicable)
Other issues raised:
3. W/N the petitioner was charged without a complaint having been initially filed and/or
preliminary investigation conducted?
4. W/N Judge Salazar violated Art. III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution by releasing a warrant
without personally determining the existence of probable cause by examining under
oath or affirmation the complainant and his witnesses
5. W/N petitioner was denied his right to bail
Holding:
1. NO. The doctrine established by Hernandez is still good law. This view was reinforced
when President Aquino, through legislative fiat, reinstated Hernandez as a binding
doctrine. President Aquino repealed PD 942, which provides 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), acts 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.
2. NO. There is one other reason-and a fundamental one at that-why Article 48 of our
Penal Code cannot be applied in the case at bar. If murder were not complexed with
rebellion, and the two crimes were punished separately (assuming that this could be
done), the following penalties would be imposable upon the movant, namely: (1) for the
crime of rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000 and prision mayor, in the
corresponding period, depending upon the modifying circumstances present, but never
exceeding 12 years of prision mayor, and (2) for the crime of murder, reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to death, depending upon the modifying
circumstances present, in other words, in the absence of aggravating
circumstances, the extreme penalty could not be imposed upon him. However, under
Article 48 said penalty would have to be meted out to him, even in the absence of a
single aggravating circumstance. Thus, said provision, if construed in conformity with
the theory of the prosecution, would be unfavorable to the movant.
3. NO. There is nothing inherently irregular or contrary to law in filing against a
respondent an indictment for an offense different from what is charged in the initiatory
complaint, if warranted by the evidence developed during the preliminary
investigation. [THIS ISSUE IS CONNECTION WITH THE CHARGE IN THE COMPLAINT
FILED, WHICH WAS A COMPLEX CRIME OF REBELLION, THE PETITIONERS ARE
CONTENDING THAT NO CHARGE WAS FILED AGAINST THEM KASI THE INFORMATION
PROVIDED FOR A CRIME NOT STIPULATED IN THE RPC.]
4. NO. This Court has already ruled, however, that it is not the unavoidable duty of the
judge to make such a personal examination, it being sufficient that he follows
established procedure by personally evaluating the report and the supporting

BLOCK D 2019 2

documents submitted by the prosecutor. [THE WARRANT WAS RELEASED KASI BARELY
AN HOUR AND TWENTY MINUTES AFTER THE CASE WAS RAFFLED TO RESPONDENT
JUDGE]
5. NO. The petitioner in this instant case invoked the wrong remedy. He was not deprived
of his right to bail. He merely forewent to invoke the jurisdiction of respondent court on
whose palms lie his recourse. 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. Raising such issue to the SC was
premature.
Ruling:
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
Courts 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.
Dissent:
Justice Fernan; concurring and dissenting:
With all due respect to the views of my brethren in the Court, I believe that the Court, in the
instant case, should have further considered that distinction between acts or offenses which
are indispensable in the commission of rebellion, on the one hand, and those acts or offenses that
are merely necessary but not indispensable in the commission of rebellion, on the other. The majority
of the Court is correct in adopting, albeit impliedly, the view in Hernandez case that when an offense
perpetrated as a necessary means of committing another, which is an element of the latter, the
resulting interlocking crimes should be considered as only one simple offense and must be deemed
outside the operation of the complex crime provision (Article 48) of the Revised Penal Code. As in the
case of Hernandez, the Court, however, failed in the instant case to distinguish what is indispensable
from what is merely necessary in the commission of an offense, resulting thus in the rule that
common crimes like murder, arson, robbery, etc. committed in the course or on the occasion of
rebellion are absorbed or included in the latter as elements thereof.
The relevance of the distinction is significant, more particularly, if applied to contemporaneous
events happening in our country today. Theoretically, a crime which is indispensable in the
commission of another must necessarily be an element of the latter; but a crime that is merely
necessary but not indispensable in the commission of another is not an element of the latter, and if
and when actually committed, brings the interlocking crime within the operation of the complex crime
provision (Art. 48) of the Revised Penal Code. With that distinction, common crimes committed
against Government forces and property in the course of rebellion are properly considered
indispensable overt acts of rebellion and are logically absorbed in it as virtual ingredients or elements
thereof, but common crimes committed against the civilian population in the course or on the
occasion of rebellion and in furtherance thereof, may be necessary but not indispensable in
committing the latter, and may, therefore, not be considered as elements of the said crime of
rebellion. To illustrate, the deaths occurring during armed confrontation or clashes between
government forces and the rebels are absorbed in the rebellion, and would be those resulting from
the bombing of military camps and installations, as these acts are indispensable in carrying out the
rebellion. But deliberately shooting down an unarmed innocent civilian to instill fear or create chaos
among the people, although done in the furtherance of the rebellion, should not be absorbed in the
crime of rebellion as the felonious act is merely necessary, but not indispensable. In the latter case,
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code should apply.
Justice Bidin; concurring and dissenting

BLOCK D 2019 3

Case should not have been remanded

Justice Padilla; dissenting

I dissent, however, from the majority opinion insofar as it holds that the information in question, while
charging the complex crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder, "is to be read as
charging simple rebellion."
The present cases are to be distinguished from the Hernandez case in at least one (1) material
respect. In the Hernandez case, this Court was confronted with an appealed case, i.e., Hernandez had
been convicted by the trial court of the complex crime of rebellion with murder, arson and robbery,
and his plea to be released on bail before the Supreme Court, pending appeal, gave birth to the now
celebrated Hernandez doctrine that the crime of rebellion complexed with murder, arson and robbery
does not exist. In the present cases, on the other hand, the Court is confronted with an original case,
i.e., where an information has been recently filed in the trial court and the petitioners have not even
pleaded thereto.

BLOCK D 2019 4