GR 92163; (June, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 92163 & G.R. No. 92164 , June 5, 1990
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, petitioner, vs. JUDGE JAIME SALAZAR, ET AL., respondents. and SPS. REBECCO E. PANLILIO AND ERLINDA E. PANLILIO, petitioners, vs. PROSECUTORS FERNANDO DE LEON, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
On February 27, 1990, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by Judge Jaime Salazar based on an information charging him, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan with the complex crime of “rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder,” allegedly committed during the failed coup attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990. No bail was recommended. Senator Enrile was detained at the NBI and later transferred to Camp Tomas Karingal. He filed a petition for habeas corpus, alleging his detention was unlawful because he was charged with a non-existent crime, denied due process and bail, and arrested via a warrant issued without a proper judicial determination of probable cause. The Panlilio spouses filed a separate but similar petition.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the petitioners can be lawfully charged and detained for the complex crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder, or whether such a complex charge is legally permissible under Philippine law.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petitions and ordered the petitioners’ release. The Court, through Justice Narvasa, reaffirmed the doctrine established in People v. Hernandez (99 Phil. 515). The Hernandez ruling holds that rebellion is a single, indivisible crime. Acts of violence, such as murder, arson, or robbery, committed as a necessary means to or in furtherance of the rebellion are absorbed by the crime of rebellion and cannot be complexed with it under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. To charge rebellion complexed with other common crimes would unlawfully impose the heavier penalty for the common crimes, which is tantamount to circumventing the constitutional prohibition against the imposition of the death penalty for political offenses.
The Court rejected the Solicitor General’s argument for a distinction between acts necessary for rebellion and acts merely committed on the occasion of rebellion. It held that the Hernandez doctrine applies comprehensively: all acts committed in the course of a rebellion, whether as a necessary means or merely on the occasion thereof, are absorbed by the crime of rebellion. Consequently, an information charging the complex crime of “rebellion with murder” is void for charging a non-existent offense. Since the information was a nullity, the warrant of arrest issued upon it was likewise void, rendering the detention of the petitioners unlawful. The Court did not rule on the other procedural issues raised, as the substantive invalidity of the information was dispositive. The petitioners were ordered permanently released.