Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • GR No. 158763 March 31, 2016 Jose C. Miranda, Alberto P. Dalmacio and Romeo B. Ocon vs. Virgilio M. Tuliao Facts

    Uploaded by

    Analou Agustin Villeza
    33 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Two burnt cadavers were discovered in 1996 which were identified as two victims. Two police officers were convicted of double murder but were later acquitted by the Supreme Court. In 1999, one officer identified the petitioners as responsible for the deaths. The trial court issued arrest warrants for the petitioners but they filed a motion without submitting to the court's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reinstated the criminal cases finding that the petitioners could not seek relief without first being placed in custody. The Supreme Court affirmed that an accused must submit to the court's jurisdiction before seeking judicial relief.

    Original Description:

    criminal procedure case

    Original Title

    Miranda

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Two burnt cadavers were discovered in 1996 which were identified as two victims. Two police officers were convicted of double murder but were later acquitted by the Supreme Court. In 1999, one officer identified the petitioners as responsible for the deaths. The trial court issued arrest warrants for the petitioners but they filed a motion without submitting to the court's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reinstated the criminal cases finding that the petitioners could not seek relief without first being placed in custody. The Supreme Court affirmed that an accused must submit to the court's jurisdiction before seeking judicial relief.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    33 views2 pages

    GR No. 158763 March 31, 2016 Jose C. Miranda, Alberto P. Dalmacio and Romeo B. Ocon vs. Virgilio M. Tuliao Facts

    Uploaded by

    Analou Agustin Villeza
    The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Two burnt cadavers were discovered in 1996 which were identified as two victims. Two police officers were convicted of double murder but were later acquitted by the Supreme Court. In 1999, one officer identified the petitioners as responsible for the deaths. The trial court issued arrest warrants for the petitioners but they filed a motion without submitting to the court's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reinstated the criminal cases finding that the petitioners could not seek relief without first being placed in custody. The Supreme Court affirmed that an accused must submit to the court's jurisdiction before seeking judicial relief.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    GR No.

    158763 March 31, 2016


    Jose C. Miranda, Alberto P. Dalmacio and Romeo B. Ocon vs. Virgilio M. Tuliao
    Facts:
    On March 8 1996 two burnt cadavers were discovered in Purok Nibulan, Ramon,
    Isabela which were later identified as the dead bodies of Vicente Buazon and Elizar
    Tuliao son of private respondent Virgilio Tuliao who is now under the witness protection
    program.
    Two information of murder were filed against five Police officers in the Regional Trial
    Court of Santiago City.
    The venue was later transferred to Manila. RTC Manila convicted all of the accused and
    sentenced them to two counts of reclusion perpetua except SPO2 Maderal who was yet
    to be arraigned at that time. Upon review of the SC, the four accused was acquitted on
    the ground of reasonable doubt.
    In September 1999, Maderal was arrested and therefore executed sword confession
    and identified herein petitioner Miranda and four others held responsible for the death of
    the victims. Tuliao then filed a criminal complaint for murder against Miranda and party.
    Acting Presiding Judge Wilfredo Tumalian issued warrant of arrest against the Miranda
    and party and Maderal.
    Miranda and party filed an urgent motion to complete preliminary investigation to
    reinvestigate and to recall or quash the warrant of arrest. In the hearing of the motion,
    Judge Tumalian noted the absence of the accused and issued a joint order denying the
    said motion on the ground that since the court did acquire jurisdiction over their
    persons, the motion cannot be properly heard by the court. The accused appealed the
    resolution of the public prosecutor to the DOJ.
    The new Presiding Judge Anghad took over the case and issued a joint order reversing
    the joint order of Judge Tumalian. He also ordered the cancellation of the warrant of
    arrest. Tuliao filed a petition for certiori, mandamus and prohibition with a prayer for
    TRO, seeking to enjoin Judge Anghad from further proceeding with the case and
    seeking to nullify the orders of Judge Anghad. The SC issued a resolution granting the
    prayer. Following the resolution, Judge Anghad issued a joint order dismissing the
    information against the accused.
    Tuliao filed a Motion to Cite Public Respondent in Contempt, alleging that Judge
    Anghad deliberately and willfully committed contempt of court when he issued an order
    dismissing the information for murder against the petition.
    On December 2002, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision granting the
    petition and ordering the reinstatement of the criminal cases in the RTC of Santiago City
    as well as the issuance of warrants of arrest against the petitioners.

    Issue:
    Whether or not an accused cannot seek any judicial relief if he does not submit his
    person to the jurisdiction of the court.
    Held:
    The petition was denied and the decision of the CA is hereby affirmed.
    It has been held that an accused cannot seek any judicial relief if he does not submit his
    person to the jurisdiction of the court. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused may
    be acquired either through compulsory process such as warrant of arrest or through
    voluntary appearance such as when he surrenders to the police or to the court. It is only
    when the court has already acquired jurisdiction over his person that an accused may
    invoke the process of the court. Thus, an accused must first be placed in the custody of
    the law before the court may validly act on his petition for judicial reliefs.
    Proceeding from this premise, the CA ruled that petitioners cannot seek any judicial
    relief since they were not yet arrested or otherwise deprived of their liberty at the time
    they filed their urgent motion to complete preliminary investigation, to reinvestigate,
    recall and quash of warrant of arrest.

    You might also like