Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

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], SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR AURELIO TRAMPE, PROSECUTOR
FERDINAND R. ABESAMIS, AND CITY ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR EULOGIO
MANANQUIL, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION DIRECTOR ALFREDO LIM,
BRIG. GEN. EDGAR DULA TORRES (Superintendent of the Northern Police District)
AND/ OR ANY AND ALL PERSONS WHO MAY HAVE ACTUAL CUSTODY OVER THE
PERSON OF JUAN PONCE ENRILE, respondents.

Facts:

February 27, 1990 the then Senate Minority Leader Juan Ponce

Enrile along with his co-accused was arrested by the enforcement

officers led by Director Alfredo Lim of the National Bureau of

Investigation on the strength of a warrant issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar

of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch 103, in Criminal Case

No. 901094. The warrant had issued on an information signed and

earlier that day filed by a panel of prosecutors composed of Senior State

Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trape, State Prosecutor Ferdinand R. Abesamis

and Assistant City Prosecutor Eulogio Mananquil, Jr. charging Sen.

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. Sen. Enrile was taken to and held

overnight at the NBI headquarters at Taft Avenue, Manila, without bail,

none having been recommended in the information and none fixed in

the arrest warrant. The petitioner contends that the crime charged upon

them is non-existent- complexing rebellion with any other common

crime such as murder, committed in the same occasion. Petioners raised

the doctrine laid down in Hernandez case.

Issue:

Whether or not the ruling in the case of Hernandez is still

applicable, or should only be limited to those crimes committed as the

necessary means for the commission of rebellion.

Held:

The court rejects the theory that the said doctrine must be limited

only to those crimes committed as the necessary means for rebellion,

due to the following reasons:

 1. Not long ago, the President acting under the 1986 Freedom

Constitution, repealed PD 942, that sought to nullify or neutralize the

Hernandez ruling by providing new provision (142-a) in the Revised

Penal Code, hence it makes the Hernandez ruling as a binding doctrine

with the effect of law.

2. Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code was enacted for the

purpose of favoring the culprit, not of sentencing him to a penalty more

severe than that which would be proper if the several acts performed

by him were punished separately.

3. The court has no power to change the law, for it can only

interpret the law as it stand at any given time, and what is needed lies

beyond interpretation. In view of the foregoing, the court upheld and

maintained the ruling where it prohibits the complexing of rebellion

with any other offense committed in the occasion thereof, either as a

means necessary to its commission or as an unintended effects of an

activity that constitutes rebellion. RE: non-existent of the crime by

reading the context of the information filed against the petitioners, in

consonance with the Hernandez ruling, the crime charged was simple

rebellion which is punishable by the Revised Penal Code.

GROUP 4

Azores, Julie Anne

Belmonte, Shena Ann

Hernandez, Karla

Maraña, Marvin Toni Dulce

Navarro, Dawn

Soquerata, Mary France