G.R. No. L-5749 - People vs. Esmedia

On February 27, 1990, Senate Minority Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by NBI Director Alfredo Lim and other law enforcers under a warrant issued by Judge Jaime Salazar (RTC Quezon City, Br. 103) in Criminal Case No. 90-10941. The information, filed the same day by prosecutors Aurelio Trampe, Ferdinand Abesamis, and Eulogio Mananquil, charged Enrile (along with spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio and Gregorio Honasan) with rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during the November 29–December 10, 1989 coup attempt.
Enrile was held overnight at NBI headquarters without bail recommended or fixed. On February 28, 1990, he was transferred to Camp Tomas Karingal under the custody of Brig. Gen. Edgardo Torres.

On February 28, 1990, Enrile filed a petition (with a March 2 supplement) alleging:

He was held for a non-existent crime.
No complaint or preliminary investigation preceded the information.
He was denied his right to bail.
His arrest warrant was issued without the judge personally determining probable cause.

The Supreme Court issued the writ returnable March 5, set oral argument on March 6, and provisionally granted bail (P100,000 for Enrile; P200,000 for the Panlilios), without prejudice to a fuller resolution. Four Justices opposed bail for Enrile; two opposed bail for the Panlilios.

In a consolidated return, the Solicitor General argued that Hernandez v. People (99 Phil. 515, 1956) applies only when common crimes are a necessary means to commit rebellion, not when committed on its occasion. He distinguished “complex” crimes (Art. 48, second clause, RPC) from “compound” crimes (first clause).
The Court considered three options:

Abandon Hernandez and adopt a minority view allowing complexing of rebellion with common crimes.
Limit Hernandez to crimes in furtherance or as necessary means of rebellion.
Retain Hernandez as prohibiting any complexing of rebellion with other offenses committed in its course.

Eleven Justices voted to retain Hernandez in full; two voted for re-examination.
The Court unanimously rejected a limiting interpretation of Hernandez.
By 11–3, the Court held the information charges simple rebellion and ordered the trial court to fix bail.

Whether People v. Hernandez remains binding and bars complexing rebellion with other offenses committed on its occasion or as necessary means.
Whether the information charging “rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder” actually charges a known criminal offense.
Whether Enrile was deprived of due process:

Whether habeas corpus was the proper remedy to vindicate his rights and obtain bail.