27 Criminal Law Review RML

PONCE ENRILE V. AMIN

September 13, 1990 || Gutierrez, Jr., J. || G.R. No. 93335 || En Banc
Application of Penalties: The Absorption Principle

Doctrine: Crimes committed in furtherance of rebellion are absorbed in a single charge of rebellion. The component crimes
cannot be separately charged against the accused, nor may it be complexed with rebellion.
Case Summary: Sen. Enrile was charged with rebellion complexed with murder and frustrated murder before the RTC QC,
and with violating PD 1829 before the RTC Makati for harboring coup perpetrator Col. Honasan. The Court ruled that the
harboring and giving aid to Honasan is absorbed in the crime of rebellion, thus the independent charge must be quashed.

Facts:

 Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile was separately charged with the commission of rebellion complexed with murder and
frustrated murder, and a violation of PD 18291 for harboring Ex-Lt. Col. Gringo Honasan, whom Enrile allegedly had
reason to believe committed a crime for carrying out the December 1989 coup.
 Enrile filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that, among the others, the pending charge of rebellion
complexed with murder and frustrated murder against Enrile as alleged co-conspirator of Col. Honasan, based on
their alleged meeting on December 1, 1989 precluded his prosecution for harboring or concealing Col. Honasan on
the same occasion under PD 1829.  Denied by Makati RTC Judge Omar U. Amin.
 Enrile filed a Petition for Certiorari before the SC, imputing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC for dismissing his MTQ. He argued, among others, that the alleged harboring
or concealing of Col. Honasan is absorbed in, or is a component element of the “complexed” rebellion presently
charged against Sen. Enrile as Honasan’s alleged co-conspirator.  SC issued TRO to enjoin the RTC from
conducting further proceedings
 The theory of the prosecution is that the offense under PD 1829 cannot be complexed with the charge of rebellion
because PD 1829 is a special law, while rebellion is punished under the RPC, which also contains the provisions
on complex crimes.
Issue: W/N Sen. Enrile could be separately charged for violation of PD No. 1829 notwithstanding the rebellion case earlier
filed against him --- NO.

Ruling:

 The Hernandez doctrine was reiterated and applied in this case: the doctrine of the case prohibited the
complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means
necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion.
 If a person cannot be charged with the complete crime of rebellion for the greater penalty to be applied, neither can
he be charged separately for two different offenses where one is a constitutive or component element or committed
in furtherance of rebellion.
 Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion, though crimes in themselves, are deemed absorbed in the one
single crime of rebellion, regardless of the type of law where the component crime is punishable.
o The principal determinant is intent or motive: is the motivation of the commission of the act in furtherance
of rebellion or not?
o In this case, the harboring of Col. Honasan was committed in furtherance of rebellion and is thus, absorbed
in the crime of rebellion.  it was motivated by the single intent or resolution to commit rebellion.  Hence,
the violation of PD 1829 cannot be the basis of a separate charge.
o The attendant circumstances in this case constrained the Court to rule that the theory of absorption in
rebellion cases must not confine itself to common crimes but also to offenses under special laws
which are perpetrated in furtherance of the political offense.
o Following this principle, the prosecution also CANNOT charge Sen. Enrile with the complex crime of
rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder. Sen. Enrile cannot be charged and tried for rebellion
in the RTC QC, while being separately charged and tried for a violation of PD 1829 in the RTC Makati.
 The absorption of the component crimes in the single charge of rebellion CANNOT be used to increase the
penalty under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code on complex crimes (People v. Prieto).
Disposition: Petition GRANTED.

1
PD 1829. Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in it maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1000 to 6000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed
upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and
prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:
xxx ( c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has
committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution and conviction.