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.
