The Sandiganbayan issued a warrant of arrest for petitioner based solely on the recommendation of the Office of the Ombudsman without determining probable cause itself. The Supreme Court ruled the warrant was invalid as the Sandiganbayan failed to determine probable cause. However, by posting bail and filing various motions, petitioner submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, so he could not claim exemption. While the warrant was initially invalid, petitioner's subsequent actions gave the court jurisdiction over his person.
The Sandiganbayan issued a warrant of arrest for petitioner based solely on the recommendation of the Office of the Ombudsman without determining probable cause itself. The Supreme Court ruled the warrant was invalid as the Sandiganbayan failed to determine probable cause. However, by posting bail and filing various motions, petitioner submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, so he could not claim exemption. While the warrant was initially invalid, petitioner's subsequent actions gave the court jurisdiction over his person.
The Sandiganbayan issued a warrant of arrest for petitioner based solely on the recommendation of the Office of the Ombudsman without determining probable cause itself. The Supreme Court ruled the warrant was invalid as the Sandiganbayan failed to determine probable cause. However, by posting bail and filing various motions, petitioner submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, so he could not claim exemption. While the warrant was initially invalid, petitioner's subsequent actions gave the court jurisdiction over his person.
] the dismissal of the case and was approved by the
Honorable Ombudsman. Petitioner filed an Urgent EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., Petitioner, v. Motion To Dismiss alleging that with the reversal of the SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION) and earlier findings of the Ombudsman of probable cause, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. there was therefore nothing on record before the respondent Sandiganbayan which would warrant the FACTS: A complaint was filed against the former issuance of a warrant of arrest and the assumption of Administrator of the PCA and the former members of jurisdiction over the instant case. the PCA Governing Board for violation of R.A. No. ISSUE: Whether or not the warrant of arrest issued by 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as respondent Sandiganbayan is null and void, or should amended. In said complaint, the respondents were now be lifted if initially valid. charged for having conspired and confederated together and taking undue advantage of their public positions RULING: 1. Yes. The Sandiganbayan failed to abide by and/or using their powers, authority, influence, the constitutional mandate of personally determining the connections or relationship with the former President existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant of and former First Lady Marcos without authority granted arrest. The Sandiganbayan had two pieces of documents a donation in the amount of P2,000,000.00 to the to consider when it resolved to issue the warrant of arrest COCOFED, using PCA special fund, thereby giving against the accused: (1) the Resolution of the Panel of COCOFED unwarranted benefits, advantage and Investigators of the Office of the Ombudsman preference through manifest partiality, evident bad faith recommending the filing of the Information and (2) the and gross inexcusable negligence. This Court ruled that Memorandum of the Office of the Special Prosecutor all proceedings in the preliminary investigation denying the existence of a prejudicial question which conducted by the PCGG were null and void and the will warrant the suspension of the criminal case. The PCGG was directed to transmit the complaints and Sandiganbayan had nothing more to support its records of the case to the Office of the Ombudsman for resolution. appropriate action. In a Resolution, the panel of In Roberts v. Court of Appeals, the Court struck down as investigators recommended the filing of Information for invalid an order for the issuance of a warrant of arrest violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The which were based only on ‘’the information, amended Resolution was referred by Assistant Ombudsman information and Joint Resolution", without the benefit of Aportadera, Jr. to the Office of the Special Prosecutor the records or evidence supporting the prosecutor’s for review and if warranted, for the preparation of the finding of probable cause. criminal information and the latter affirmed the recommendation. In a Memorandum the panel of And in Ho v. People, the Court declared that respondent investigators recommended that the motion to suspend "palpably committed grave abuse of discretion in ipso proceedings be granted. Ombudsman Vasquez referred facto issuing the challenged warrant of arrest on the sole for comment to the Office of the Special Prosecutor the basis of the prosecutor’s findings and recommendation, Memorandum of the panel of investigators on the issue and without determining on its own the issue of probable of the existence of prejudicial question. An order for the cause based on evidence other than such bare findings arrest of petitioner was issued by the respondent and recommendation." Sandiganbayan and petitioner posted bail. On the same day he likewise filed a Manifestation stating that he was The rule is well-settled that the giving or posting of bail posting bail without prejudice to the Opposition To by the accused is tantamount to submission of his person Issuance of Warrant of Arrest with Motion For Leave To to the jurisdiction of the court. By posting bail, herein File a Motion For Reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s petitioner cannot claim exemption from the effect of Resolution which he filed. In a Resolution, the being subject to the jurisdiction of respondent court. respondent Sandiganbayan barred petitioner from While petitioner has exerted efforts to continue disputing leaving the country except upon approval of the court. the validity of the issuance of the warrant of arrest Petitioner was conditionally arraigned pleading not despite his posting bail, his claim has been negated when guilty to the Information. In a Memorandum Special he himself invoked the jurisdiction of respondent court Prosecution Officer Tabanguil found no probable cause through the filing of various motions that sought other to warrant the filing against petitioner and the other affirmative reliefs. In La Naval Drug v. CA, lack of accused in Criminal Case No. 22018 and recommended jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be waived either expressly or impliedly. When a defendant voluntarily appears, he is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. If he so wishes not to waive this defense; he must do so seasonably by motion for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court; otherwise, he shall be deemed to have submitted himself to that jurisdiction. Moreover, where the appearance is by motion for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, it must be for the sole and separate purpose of objecting to said jurisdiction. If the appearance is for any other purpose, the defendant is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Such an appearance gives the court jurisdiction over the person. With the rule in Crespo v. Mogul, after the filing of the information in court, any disposition of the case as to its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court.