SUMMARY:

Enrile, et. al. were charged with rebellion with murder and
multiple frustrated murders. They were arrested without
bail, thus this petition for habeas corpus. The Supreme
Court held that applying the Hernandez doctrine (one crime
of simple rebellion only and not complex crime under Article
48) the petitioners could be granted bail. OSG’s contention
that the Hernandez doctrine does not apply because it only
applies to the 2nd portion of Article 48 (the offense is a
necessary means of committing the other) and the present
case falls on the 1st portion (single act constitutes 2 or more
crimes) was not heeded.

DOCTRINES:
Hernandez doctrine: Murder and arson are crimes inherent
when rebellion is taking place. In the RPC, rebellion is just a
single crime (Article 134) and there is no reason to complex
it with other crimes inherent in its commission. Thus, Article
48 applies only when there are two crimes committed and
not when there is only one such as in this case.

Article 48 was enacted to favor the accused, not of

sentencing him/her to a penalty more severe than what is
proper when the acts were punished separately.
FACTS:
February 27, 1990 – Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan
Ponce Enrile was arrested by law enforcement officers led
by Director Alfredo Lim of the National Bureau of
Investigation on the strength of a warrant issued by Judge
Salazar of the RTC-Quezon City.

Senator Enrile, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio,

and Gregorio Honasan were charged with the crime
of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated
murders allegedly committed during the period of the failed
coup attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990.

Senator Enrile was taken to and held overnight at the NBI

headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila, without bail, none
having been recommended in the information and none
fixed in the arrest warrant.

The following morning, February 28, 1990, he was brought

to Camp Tomas Karingal in Quezon City where he was
given over to the custody of the Superintendent of the
Northern Police District, Brig. Gen. Edgardo Dula Torres.

On the same date of February 28, 1990, Senator Enrile,

through counsel, filed the petition for habeas corpus.
ISSUES:
WON the petitioner has committed a complex crime arising
from an offense being a necessary means to commit
another, referred in the Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code? (NO)

RATIO:
NO. Enrile and the Panlilio spouses should only be charged
with simple rebellion following the Hernandez doctrine:

Murder and arson are crimes inherent when rebellion is

taking place. In the RPC, rebellion is just a single crime
(Article 134) and there is no reason to complex it with other
crimes inherent in its commission. Thus, Article 48 applies
only when there are two crimes committed and not when
there is only one such as in this case.

The OSG contends that this case does not fall within the
Hernandez ruling because the information in Hernandez
charged murders and other common crimes committed as
a necessary means for the commission of rebellion,
whereas the information against Sen. Enrile et al.
charged murder and frustrated murder committed on the
occasion, but not in furtherance, of rebellion.
Stated otherwise, the Solicitor General would distinguish
between the complex crime (“delito complejo”) arising from
an offense being a necessary means for committing
another, which is referred to in the second clause of Article
48 and is the subject of the Hernandez ruling, and the
compound crime (“delito compuesto”) arising from a single
act constituting two or more grave or less grave offenses
referred to in the first clause of the same paragraph, with
which Hernandez was not concerned and to which,
therefore, it should not apply.

The court does not agree. If rebellion will be punished

separately, Enrile could be charged with (1) crime
of rebellion, fine not exceeding PhP 20,000 and Prision
Mayor, and depending on the circumstances, up to but not
exceeding 12 years of Prision Mayor; (2) crime of murder,
punishable Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period to
death, depending on the circumstances.

In the absence of aggravating circumstances, the maximum

penalty cannot be imposed on Enrile. However, Article 48
states that an accused can be punished the MAXIMUM
PENALTY even without a single AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES. This is contrary to the principle that
penal statutes should be decided liberally in favor of the
accused and strictly against the state.

Article 48 was enacted to favor the accused, not of

sentencing him/her to a penalty more severe than what
is proper when the acts were punished separately.

The spirit of Article 48 is that if there are two or more acts

which constitute a single act, the single act should be the
one punished for if the punishments were combined for the
constitutive acts, it impose a graver penalty than what is
proper which is unfavorable to the accused.

DISPOSITIVE:
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.