G.R. No.

93335 September 13, 1990

JUAN PONCE ENRILE, petitioner,
vs.
HON. OMAR U. AMIN, Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 135,
HON. IGNACIO M. CAPULONG, Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court of Makati,
Branch 134, Pairing Judge, SPECIAL COMPOSITE TEAM of: Senior State Prosecutor
AURELIO TRAMPE, State Prosecutor FERDINAND ABESAMIS and Asst. City
Prosecutor EULOGIO MANANQUIL; and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Facts:
• Petitioner was charged with rebellion complexed with murder and violation of PD 1829 when
he concealed Gringo Honasan in his house, obstructing and delaying his apprehension.
• Enrile entertained and accommodated Honasan by giving him food and comfort knowing that
he is a fugitive from justice.
• Enrile filed a petition for certiorari stating that his acts did not constitute and offense and the
pending charge of rebellion complexed with murder and frustrated murder against him as
alleged co-conspirator of Honasan, on the basis of their alleged meeting, preclude his
prosecution for concealing Honasan.

Issue:
• Whether or not the petitioner could be separately charged for violation of PD No. 1829
(special law) notwithstanding the rebellion case (RPC which is general law) earlier filed
against him.

Ruling:
• No, , because all crimes, whether punishable under a special law or general law, which are
mere components or ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the
crime of rebellion and can not be isolated and charged as separate crimes in themselves.
• If a person can not be charged with the complex crime of rebellion for the greater penalty to
be applied, neither can he be charged separately for two (2) different offenses where one is a
constitutive or component element or committed in furtherance of rebellion.
• The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is described as a vast movement of men and a
complex net of intrigues and plots.
• Jurisprudence tells us that acts committed in furtherance of the rebellion though crimes in
themselves are deemed absorbed in the one single crime of rebellion.
• In this case, the act of harboring or concealing Honasan is clearly a mere component or
ingredient of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the rebellion. It cannot therefore be
made the basis of a separate charge.