FRANCO, MANUEL JOSEPH U.

CLAW | JD-1B TTh | 2:30-4:30PM

PONCE ENRILE VS AMIN

GR NO. 93335
September 13, 1990
FACTS:
An information was filed against Juan Ponce Enrile as having committed rebellion "complexed"
with murder and charging him of violation of PD No. 1829.
It was alleged that Ponce Enrile entertained and accommodated Col. Honasan by giving him
food and comfort in his house. Kwowing that Col. Honasan is a fugitive from justice, Sen. Enrile
allegedly did not do anything to have Honasan arrested or apprehended. And because of such
failure of the petitioner that prevented Col. Honasan's arrest and conviction was allegedly a
violation of Section 1 (c) of PD No. 1829.
On March 2, 1990, Sen. Enrile filed an Omnibus Motion but was denied. Then, Sen. Filed a
Motion for Reconsideration and to Quash/Dismiss the Information but then again was denied.
In return, Sen. Enrile filed for certiorari on the SC imputing grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the respondent court on the following grounds:
a. the facts do not constitute an offense;
b. the alleged harboring and concealing of Col. Honasan is absorbed in complexed rebellion;
c. that justice requires only one prosecution for all the components of rebellion;
d. no probable cause for the violation of PD No. 1829; and
e. no preliminary investigation was conducted for the alleged violation of PD No. 1829.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Sen. Enrile be separately charged for violation of PD No. 1829 not withstanding
the rebellion case earlier filed against him.
HELD:
The Supreme Court granted the petition of Sen. Enrile and quashed the information.
The SC reiterated the long standing proscription against splitting the component offenses of
rebellion and subjecting them to separate prosecutions. It is Hernandez case that remains binding
doctrine to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the

occasion thereof, either as means necessary to its commission or as an intended effect of an

activity that constitutes rebellion.
Petitioner's act of harboring or concealing was for no other purpose but in furtherance of the
crime of rebellion thus constituting a component thereof. All crimes, whether punishable under
special law or general law, which are mere components or ingredients, or committed in the
furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion and cannot be isolated and
charged as separate crimes. It is the rule that the ingredients of a crime form part and parcel
thereof, and hence, are absorbed by the same and cannot be punished either separately therefrom
or by application of Art. 48 of the RPC.