JUAN PONCE ENRILE vs. HON. OMAR U. AMIN, GR 93335
JUAN PONCE ENRILE vs. HON. OMAR U. AMIN, GR 93335
JUAN PONCE ENRILE vs. HON. OMAR U. AMIN, GR 93335
MARICEL ELLACER-BOWERS
MARICEL ELLACER-BOWERS
concealing Honasan for practically the same act to form two separate crimes of
rebellion and violation of PD No. 1829.
Clearly, the petitioner's alleged act of harboring or concealing which was based on
his acts of conspiring with Honasan was committed in connection with or in
furtherance of rebellion and must now be deemed as absorbed by, merged in, and
Identified with the crime of rebellion punished in Articles 134 and 135 of the RPC.
Thus, national, as well as international, laws and jurisprudence overwhelmingly
favor the proposition that common crimes, perpetrated in furtherance of a political
offense, are divested of their character as "common" offenses, and assume the
political complexion of the main crime of which they are mere ingredients, and
consequently, cannot be punished separately from the principal offense, or
complexed with the same, to justify the imposition of a graver penalty.
Noteworthy is the recent case of Misolas v. Panga, (G.R. No. 83341, January 30,
1990) where the Court had the occasion to pass upon a nearly similar issue. In this
case, the petitioner Misolas, an alleged member of the New Peoples Army (NPA),
was charged with illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in furtherance of
subversion under Section 1 of PD 1866. In his motion to quash the information, the
petitioner based his arguments on the Hernandez and Geronimo rulings on the
doctrine of absorption of common in rebellion. The Court, however, clarified, to wit:
... in the present case, petitioner is being charged specifically for the qualified
offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under PD 1866. HE IS NOT
BEING CHARGED WITH THE COMPLEX CRIME OF SUBVERSION WITH ILLEGAL
POSSESSION OF FIREARMS. NEITHER IS HE BEING SEPARATELY CHARGED FOR
SUBVERSION AND FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS. Thus, the rulings of the
Court in Hernandez, Geronimo and Rodriguez find no application in this case.
The Court in the above case upheld the prosecution for illegal possession of firearms
under PD 1866 because no separate prosecution for subversion or rebellion had
been filed. The prosecution must make up its mind whether to charge Senator
Ponce Enrile with rebellion alone or to drop the rebellion case and charge him with
murder and multiple frustrated murder and also violation of P.D. 1829. It cannot
complex the rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder. Neither can it
prosecute him for rebellion in Quezon City and violation of PD 1829 in Makati. It
should be noted that there is in fact a separate prosecution for rebellion already
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. In such a case, the independent
prosecution under PD 1829 can not prosper.
As we have earlier mentioned, the intent or motive is a decisive factor. If Senator
Ponce Enrile is not charged with rebellion and he harbored or concealed Colonel
Honasan simply because the latter is a friend and former associate, the motive for
the act is completely different. But if the act is committed with political or social
motives, that is in furtherance of rebellion, then it should be deemed to form part of
the crime of rebellion instead of being punished separately.
MARICEL ELLACER-BOWERS
In view of the foregoing, the petitioner can not be tried separately under PD 1829 in
addition to his being prosecuted in the rebellion case. With this ruling, there is no
need for the Court to pass upon the other issues raised by the petitioner.
MARICEL ELLACER-BOWERS