Case Digest (G.R. No. 93335)
Facts:
Juan Ponce Enrile v. Hon. Omar U. Amin, Hon. Ignacio M. Capulong, et al., G.R. No. 93335. September 13, 1990, the Supreme Court En Banc, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was the accused in two separate criminal informations arising from events of December 1, 1989: one charging him with rebellion complexed with murder (filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City) and a second charging him with violating Presidential Decree No. 1829 (harboring or concealing a fugitive) filed as Criminal Case No. 90-777 with the Regional Trial Court of Makati. The Makati information alleged that on or about December 1, 1989, at his Dasmariñas Village residence, Enrile knowingly obstructed or delayed the apprehension of Col. Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan by harboring or concealing him.
On March 2, 1990 Enrile filed an Omnibus Motion in the Makati case to hold issuance of an arrest warrant in abeyance pending personal determination of probable cause and to dismiss and expunge the information. On March 16, 1990, respondent Judge Ignacio M. Capulong, as pairing judge for respondent Judge Omar U. Amin, denied the omnibus motion, finding probable cause to hold Enrile for violation of PD No. 1829. Enrile moved for reconsideration on March 21, 1990, contending among other things that (a) the charged facts did not constitute a separate offense; (b) the finding of probable cause lacked factual and legal basis; and (c) the pending rebellion charge based on the same December 1 meeting precluded prosecution under PD 1829. The Makati court denied reconsideration on May 10, 1990 and set arraignment for May 30, 1990.
Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; the Court issued a temporary restraining order on May 20, 1990 enjoining further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 90-777. The pivotal question presented was whether a separate prosecution under PD No. 1829, Sec. 1(c) could proceed notwithstanding the existing rebellion prosecution in Quezo...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May petitioner be separately prosecuted for violation of PD No. 1829 (harboring or concealing a fugitive) when a prosecution charging him with rebellion (complexed with murder) based on the same incident is pending?
- If the Court's ruling on Issue 1 is adverse to the prosecution, is it necessary for the Court to decide the other grounds raised by petitioner—whether the facts charged constitute an offense, whether there was probable cause, or whether lack of a preliminary investigation/vitiated inve...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)