51. ENRILE V.

SALAZAR
186 SCRA 217

FACTS:
In February 1990, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested for the crime of rebellion with
murder and multiple frustrated murder. The warrant of arrest was issued by Judge Jaime
Salazar. Said crime arose from the failed coup attempts against then president Corazon
Aquino. There was no bail set for Enrile due to the seriousness of the crime charged against
him. Enrile was then brought to Camp Karingal. Enrile later filed a petition for habeas corpus
questioning his detention and alleging that the crime being charged against him is nonexistent.
He insists that there is no such crime as rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder.
Enrile invoked the ruling in the landmark case of People vs Hernandez where it was ruled that
rebellion cannot be complexed with common crimes such as murder; as such, the proper crime
that should have been charged against him is simple rebellion – which is bailable.
Enrile also questioned the regularity of the issuance of the warrant of arrest against him.
He claimed that it only took Judge Salazar one hour and twenty minutes (from the raffling of
the case to him) to issue the warrant. Enrile claimed that such period is so short that it was
impossible for the judge to have been able to examine the voluminous record of the case from
the prosecution’s office – that being, the constitutional provision that a judge may only issue a
warrant of arrest after personally determining the existence of probable cause has not been
complied with.
For the prosecution, the Solicitor General argued that the Hernandez ruling should be
abandoned and that it should be ruled that rebellion cannot absorb more serious crimes like
murder.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the Hernandez ruling should be abandoned.
2. Whether or not Judge Salazar personally determined probable cause in the case
at bar.

RULING:
1. No, the said case is still good law. The Supreme Court also noted that there was
actually a previous law (P.D. 942) which sought to abandon the Hernandez doctrine. The said
law provided that graver crimes may not be complexed with rebellion. However, President
Corazon Aquino repealed said law (by virtue of the power granted to her by the 1986 Freedom
Constitution). That being, the Hernandez doctrine, which reflects the rebellion law under the
Revised Penal Code, still stands. The courts cannot change this because courts can only
interpret laws. Only Congress can change the rebellion law (which the SC suggested in order
to strengthen the rebellion law). But as it stands, Enrile is correct, there is no such crime as
rebellion with murder. Common crimes such as murder are absorbed. He can only be charged
with rebellion – which is bailable.
2. Yes. There is nothing irregular on the fact that Judge Salazar only took an hour and
twenty minutes to issue the warrant from the time the case was raffled to him despite the fact
that the prosecution transmitted quite a voluminous record from the preliminary investigation it
conducted. It is sufficient that the judge follows established procedure by personally evaluating
the report and the supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor. Just because Judge
Salazar had what some might consider only a relatively brief period within which to comply with
that duty, gives no reason to assume that he had not, or could not have, so complied; nor does
that single circumstance suffice to overcome the legal presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed.