MIRANDA vs TULIAO

MIRANDA vs TULIAO

FACTS:

March 08, 1996, 2 burnt cadavers were discovered I Purok Nibulan, Ramon, Isabela. September 1999, SP02 Mardeal was arrested. April 27, 2001, he executed a sworn confession and identified petitioners Jose Miranda, SP03 Ocon, SP03 Dalmacio , a certain Boyet dela Cruz and Amado Doe, as the persons responsible for the death of Vicente Buazon and Elizar Tualiao. Judge 6, 2001, Judge Tumaliuan noted the absence of petitioners and issued a Joint order denying said urgent motion on the ground that, since the Court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons, the motion cannot be properly heard by the Court. In the meantime, petitioners appealed the resolution of the State Prosecutor Leo T. Reyes to the Department of Justice.

DOCTRINES:

Adjudication of a motion to quash a warrant of arrest neither jurisdiction over the person of the accused, nor custody of law over the body of the accused.

CA Justice Oscar Herrerra:

Except in application for bail, it is not necessary for the Court of First Instance to first acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused to dismiss the case or grant the relief. The outright dismissal of the case even before the Court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused is authorized under Section 6 (a), Rule 112 Rule of Court, Criminal Procedure.

SANTIAGO vs VASQUEZ

The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the court acquires jurisdiction over his person, is accomplished either by his pleading to the merits (such as filing a motion to quash or other pleadings requiring the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction over, appearing for arraignment, entering trial) or by filing bail.

Santiago shows discretion but custody of law and jurisdiction over the person. Custody of the law is required before the Court can act upon the application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other relief sought by the dependant where by mere application, thereof, constitutes a waiver of the defence of lack of jurisdiction over the person accused.

EXCEPTION TO THE RULE that filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary appearance, and the consequent submission of one’s person to the jurisdiction of the Court. This is in the case of pleadings whose prayer is precisely for the avoidance of the jurisdiction of the Court, lead to special appearance. Failure to file them is WAIVER OF DEFENCE

1.       Civil cases, motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, whether or not other grounds for dismissal are included.

2.       Criminal cases, motion to quash a complaint on the ground of jurisdiction over the person of the accused

3.       Motion to Quash a warrant of arrest – Legality of Court process forcing the submission of the person of the accused.

GENERAL RULE: One who seeks affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the Jurisdiction of the Court.