Enrile v. Amin
MODIFICATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was charged with rebellion complexed with murder and frustrated murder. Concurrently, a separate information was filed against him for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829, alleging that he harbored and concealed ex-Colonel Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan on December 1, 1989, thereby obstructing the apprehension of Honasan. 2. Procedural History: The petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion seeking to hold the issuance of an arrest warrant in abeyance and to dismiss the information for violation of PD 1829. This motion was denied by respondent Judge Ignacio Capulong, who found probable cause. A subsequent motion for reconsideration and to quash/dismiss the information was also denied, leading to the setting of an arraignment. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion. 3. The Petition: The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to annul the orders of the respondent court, arguing that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, that the alleged harboring is absorbed within the rebellion charge, that there is no probable cause, and that no proper preliminary investigation was conducted. The core of the petition is that the charge for violation of PD 1829 is improper as it is a component or ingredient of the more serious charge of rebellion, citing the doctrine established in People v. Hernandez which prohibits splitting offenses related to rebellion into separate prosecutions.
Issue(s)
Whether the charge for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829 for harboring Ex-Col. Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan is absorbed in the charge of rebellion complexed with murder and frustrated murder against Senator Juan Ponce Enrile. Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to quash/dismiss the information for violation of PD 1829, and whether there is probable cause to hold Senator Enrile for trial for alleged violation of PD 1829. Whether a proper preliminary investigation was conducted for the alleged violation of PD 1829.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Information in Criminal Case No. 90-777 is QUASHED. The temporary restraining order enjoining further proceedings is made permanent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of absorption of offenses: The Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine laid down in People v. Hernandez, which prohibits the splitting of component offenses of rebellion and subjecting them to separate prosecutions. The Court held that acts committed in furtherance of rebellion, even if they constitute common crimes or offenses under special laws, are absorbed in the crime of rebellion. In this case, the alleged harboring and concealing of Col. Honasan, as described in the PD 1829 charge, was intimately tied to the alleged meeting and conspiracy with Honasan, which formed the basis of the rebellion charge. Therefore, the act of harboring or concealing Honasan was a mere component or ingredient of the crime of rebellion, or an act done in furtherance thereof, and could not be the basis of a separate charge. The Court emphasized that the intent or motive is decisive; if the act is committed with political or social motives in furtherance of rebellion, it should be deemed part of the crime of rebellion. On the alleged violation of PD 1829, probable cause, and grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the factual allegations supporting the rebellion charge constituted or included the very incident that gave rise to the charge under PD 1829. The prosecution alleged that Senator Enrile met with Col. Honasan and about 100 armed rebel soldiers on December 1, 1989, and that Enrile harbored and concealed Honasan on the same occasion. This meeting and harboring were inferred by the prosecution as evidence of conspiracy in the rebellion. Thus, the act of harboring or concealing was intrinsically linked to the rebellion charge and could not be prosecuted independently. The Court rejected the prosecution's argument that PD 1829, being a special law, could be prosecuted separately from the rebellion charge under the Revised Penal Code, stating that the Hernandez doctrine applies to all offenses, whether under special or general laws, if they are mere components or ingredients of rebellion or committed in furtherance thereof. Given the ruling that the charge under PD 1829 is absorbed in the rebellion case, the Court also addresses the issue of probable cause and grave abuse of discretion. On preliminary investigation: Given the ruling that the charge under PD 1829 is absorbed in the rebellion case, the Court found it unnecessary to pass upon the issues of the alleged irregularities in the preliminary investigation. The primary issue of whether a separate prosecution could prosper was resolved in favor of the petitioner, rendering the other issues moot.
Main Doctrine
Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion, even if punishable under special laws, are absorbed in the crime of rebellion and cannot be prosecuted separately.