Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Enrile vs. Salazar
Enrile vs. Salazar
_______________
* EN BANC.
218
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001702fa3f80bf1ea6ac4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/38
2/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
219
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001702fa3f80bf1ea6ac4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/38
2/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001702fa3f80bf1ea6ac4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/38
2/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
220
221
try to ascertain the intent of rebels for each single act unless the
act is plainly not connected to the rebellion. We cannot use Article
48 of the Revised Penal Code in lieu of still-to-be-enacted
legislation. The killing of civilians during a rebel attack on
military facilities furthers the rebellion and is part of the
rebellion.
222
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001702fa3f80bf1ea6ac4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/38
2/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
223
NARVASA, J.:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001702fa3f80bf1ea6ac4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/38
2/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
_______________
224
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001702fa3f80bf1ea6ac4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/38
2/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
_______________
225
_______________
226
________________
227
“We are aware of the fact that this observation refers to Article
71 (later 75) of the Spanish Penal Code (the counterpart of our
Article 48), as amended in 1908 and then in 1932, reading:
228
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001702fa3f80bf1ea6ac4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/38
2/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
and that our Article 48 does not contain the qualification inserted
in said amendment, restricting the imposition of the penalty for
the graver offense in its maximum period to the case when it does
not exceed the sum total of the penalties imposable if the acts
charged were dealt with separately. The absence of said limitation
in our Penal Code does not, to our mind, affect substantially the
spirit of said Article 48. Indeed, if one act constitutes two or more
offenses, there can be no reason to inflict a punishment graver
than that prescribed for each one of said offenses put together. In
directing that the penalty for the graver offense be, in such case,
imposed in its maximum period, Article 48 could have had no
other purpose than to prescribe a penalty lower than the
aggregate of the penalties for each offense, if imposed separately.
The reason for this benevolent spirit of Article 48 is readily
discernible. When two or more crimes are the result of a single
act, the offender is deemed less perverse than when he commits
said crimes thru separate and distinct acts. Instead of sentencing
him for each crime independently from the other, he must suffer
the maximum of the penalty for the more serious one, on the
assumption that it is less grave than the sum total of the separate
12
penalties for each offense.”
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001702fa3f80bf1ea6ac4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/38
2/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
________________
229
_______________
13 Id., at 551.
230
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001702fa3f80bf1ea6ac4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/38
2/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
_______________
231
_______________
232
_______________
233
_______________
234
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001702fa3f80bf1ea6ac4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/38
2/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001702fa3f80bf1ea6ac4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/38
2/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001702fa3f80bf1ea6ac4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/38
2/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
238
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001702fa3f80bf1ea6ac4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/38
2/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
_______________
240
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001702fa3f80bf1ea6ac4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/38
2/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
242
243
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001702fa3f80bf1ea6ac4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/38
2/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
245
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001702fa3f80bf1ea6ac4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/38
2/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
246
247
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001702fa3f80bf1ea6ac4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/38
2/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
248
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001702fa3f80bf1ea6ac4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/38
2/10/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 186
249
250
_______________
251
——o0o——
_______________
3 Supra, 521.
4 US v. Santiago, 41 Phil. 793 (1917).
252
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001702fa3f80bf1ea6ac4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 38/38