Enrile v Salazar

Nature of the case: Petition for Habeas Corpus

Doctrine: Right to bail

Petitioners

Respondents

Facts:

- Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by law enforcement officers based
on a warrant issued by Hon. Salazar of QC RTC. This warrant was issued on the information filed
by several state prosecutors charging Enrile, Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan with the
crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murders allegedly committed during the
failed coup. Enrile was taken to the NBI HQ where he was held overnight, without bail because it
was not recommended in the bail. He was then transferred to Camp Tomas Karingal of QC
where he was given over to the custody of the Superintendent of the Northern Police District.
- Enrile, through counsel, filed a petition for Habeas corpus alleging that he was deprived of his
constitutional rights being, or having been:
o held to answer for criminal offense which does not exist in the statute books;
o 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;
o denied his right to bail; and
o 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
- The Court issued the writ of habeas corpus and set the plea for hearing. A day before the
hearing, the SolGen filed a consolidated return for the respondents, which urged that the
Hernandez ruling does not apply in the case because the information against the respondents
here is for murder and frustrated murder committed on the occasion, but not in furtherance, of
rebellion. After the hearing, the court issued its resolution granting Sen. Enrile and the Panlilio
spouses provisional liberty conditioned upon their filing of cash bonds of P100k within 24 hours.
Four members of the /court voted against granting bail.
- The court had 3 options
o abandon Hernandez and adopt the minority view expressed in the main dissent of
Justice Montemayor in said case that rebellion cannot absorb more serious crimes, and
that under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code rebellion may properly be complexed
with common offenses, so-called; this option was suggested by the Solicitor General in
oral argument although it is not offered in his written pleadings;
o hold Hernandez 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;
o maintain Hernandez as applying to make rebellion absorb all other offenses committed
in its course, whether or not necessary to its commission or in furtherance thereof.
- On the first option, 11 members of the court voted against abandoning Hernandez. The ruling
remains good law, it overcame all the challenges. This was reinforced by President Cory saw it fit
 to repeal the PD which neutralized Hernandez. Since Hernandez is still a binding doctrine, which
prohibits the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on occasion thereof.

Petitioner’s Arguments

- The petitioner argue that he is charged with a crime that does not exist in statute books. They
also contend that he was denied the right to bail. Since Hernandez is now applicable to the case
at bar, the charge against him should only be simple rebellion and not what is being charged
against him now.

Issue

- Should the petitioners be granted the right to bail? YES

Fallo

- 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 Court's 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.
- SO ORDERED.

Held

- Yes.
- The Hernandez doctrine is applicable to the case, which entails that the petitioners were
wrongly charged with an information depicting a non-existent crime within the statute books,
but that information should be read as charging the petitioners with simple rebellion rather
than rebellion with murder. And that they should be allowed bail.
- However, the remedy sought by the petitioners was wrongly placed. They should have invoked
the original jurisdiction of the lower courts to grant or deny bail before going to this court.

Notes