Anda di halaman 1dari 2

ENRILE v.

SALAZAR
G.R. No. 92163, JUNE 5, 1990
NARVASA, J.
FACTS
Senate Majority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested on the strength of a warrant
issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar due to an information charging Senator Enrile, spouses
Panlilio and Gregorio Honasan with murder and frustrated murder committed during the
failed coup attempt on Nov. 29- Dec. 10, 1990.
Senator Enrile was detained and was not allowed to post for bail as provided by the
information and the arrest warrant. He was given over to the custody of the Superintendent
of the Northern Police District. He then filed a petition for habeas corpus alleging that
there was a violation of his Constitutional Rights. He claims that he was held to answer for
a non-existent crime, that there was no complaint filed or a preliminary investigation which
denied him of due process, that he has a right to bail, and the the warrant was issued
without the judge personally determining if there is probable cause.
The Solicitor General wished to abandon the doctrines in the case of Hernandez because
rebellion cannot absorb more serious crimes and the doctrine can only be applicable if
offenses are committed in furtherance or, as a necessary means of the commission of
rebellion.
ISSUES
1. WON the Hernandez case is applicable
2. WON Enrile is charged with a crime that is not in the statutes book
3. WON Judge Salazar properly discharged his duties when issuing the warrant
4. WON the writ of habeas corpus was the proper vehicle for asserting the right to bail
RULING
1. Yes. The Hernandez case is still applicable. The court said that the Hernandez case still
has the force of law. Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the
complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion thereof, either
as a means necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that
constitutes rebellion. Rebellion may not be complexed by murder. There is an apparent
need to restructure the law on rebellion, either to raise the penalty therefor or to clearly
define and delimit the other offenses to be considered as absorbed thereby, so that it cannot
be conveniently utilized as the umbrella for every sort of illegal activity undertaken in its
name.
2. Yes. The court has already ruled that rebellion cannot be complexed by other offenses
committed during the occasion. Thus, Enrile is only punished by simple rebellion.
3. Yes. The petitioner’s contention that the judge was not able to thoroughly and personally
go trough the records due to the brief period – 1 hour & 20 mins after filing of information,
given to him do not hold weight. There was no circumstance that would presuppose the
legal presumption that the official duty of the judge was regularly performed.
4. No. The original jurisdiction to grant bail rests upon Judge Salazar. Enrile should have
filed a petition to Salazar in order to be admitted to bail. The proper remedy would be a
motion to quash before Judge Salazar. Directly filing to the SC circumvented or deprived
the trial court from exercising its jurisdiction.

Members:
Baron, Sunshine B.
Etcobanes, Kiel R.
Pineda, Ryd-Ace D.