PILONEO - 11 - G.R. No. 158763

G.R. No. 158763.
March 31, 2006

JOSE C. MIRANDA, ALBERTO P. DALMACIO, AND ROMEO B.
OCON
VS.
VIRGILIO M. TULIAO
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
FACTS:
On 8 March 1996, two burnt cadavers were discovered in Purok
Nibulan, Ramon, Isabela, which were later identified as the dead bodies
of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao, son of private respondent Virgilio
Tuliao who is now under the witness protection program. Two
informations for murder were filed against SPO1 Wilfredo Leaño, SPO1
Ferdinand Marzan, SPO1 Ruben B. Agustin, SPO2 Alexander Micu,
SPO2 Rodel Maderal, and SPO4 Emilio Ramirez in the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Santiago City. The venue was later transferred to
Manila. On 22 April 1999, the RTC of 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, being at large. The
case was appealed to this Court on automatic review where we, on 9
October 2001, acquitted the accused therein on the ground of reasonable
doubt. Sometime in September 1999, SPO2 Maderal was arrested. On 27
April 2001, he executed a sworn confession and identified petitioners
Jose C. Miranda, PO3 Romeo B. Ocon, and SPO3 Alberto P. Dalmacio, a
certain Boyet dela Cruz and Amado Doe, as the persons responsible for
the deaths of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao. Respondent Tuliao filed
a criminal complaint for murder against petitioners, Boyet dela Cruz,
and Amado Doe, and submitted the sworn confession of SPO2 Maderal.
On 25 June 2001, Acting Presiding Judge Wilfredo Tumaliuan issued
warrants of arrest against petitioners and SPO2 Maderal. On 29 June
2001, petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete preliminary
investigation, to reinvestigate, and to recall and/or quash the warrants
of arrest. In the hearing of the urgent motion on 6 July 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 State Prosecutor Leo T. Reyes to the Department of Justice. On 17
August 2001, the new Presiding Judge Anastacio D. Anghad took over
the case and issued a Joint Order reversing the Joint Order of Judge
Tumaliuan. Consequently, he ordered the cancellation of the warrant of
arrest issued against petitioner Miranda. He likewise applied this Order
to petitioners Ocon and Dalmacio in an Order dated 21 September 2001.
State Prosecutor Leo S. Reyes and respondent Tuliao moved for the
reconsideration of the said Joint Order and prayed for the inhibition of
Judge Anghad, but the motion for reconsideration was denied in a Joint
Order dated 16 October 2001 and the prayer for inhibition was denied
in a Joint Order dated 22 October 2001. On 25 October 2001, respondent
Tuliao filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition with
this Court, with prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order, seeking to
enjoin Judge Anghad from further proceeding with the case, and
seeking to nullify the Orders and Joint Orders of Judge Anghad dated
17 August 2001, 21 September 2001, 16 October 2001, and 22 October
2001. On 12 November 2001, this Court issued a Resolution resolving to
grant the prayer for a temporary restraining order against Judge
Anghad from further proceeding with the criminal cases. Shortly after
the aforesaid resolution, Judge Anghad issued a Joint Order dated 14
November 2001 dismissing the two Informations for murder against
petitioners. On 19 November 2001, this Court took note of respondent’s
cash bond evidenced by O.R. No. 15924532 dated 15 November 2001,
and issued the temporary restraining order while referring the petition
to the Court of Appeals for adjudication on the merits. Respondent
Tuliao filed with this Court a Motion to Cite Public Respondent in
Contempt, alleging that Judge Anghad "deliberately and willfully
committed contempt of court when he issued on 15 November 2001 the
Order dated 14 November 2001 dismissing the informations for
murder." On 21 November 2001, we referred said motion to the Court
of Appeals in view of the previous referral to it of respondent’s petition
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. On 18 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
petitioners and SPO2 Maderal. Petitioners moved for a reconsideration
of this Decision, but the same was denied in a Resolution dated 12 June
2003.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused can seek any judicial relief if he does
not submit his person to the jurisdiction of the court.
RULING:
Yes. Adjudication of a motion to quash a warrant of arrest
requires neither jurisdiction over the person of the accused, nor custody
of law over the body of the accused.
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
reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere application therefor
constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person
of the accused.
Custody of the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary
surrender, while jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired
upon his arrest or voluntary appearance.
While we stand by our above pronouncement in Pico insofar as it
concerns bail, we clarify that, as a general rule, one who seeks an
affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the
court.
As we held in the aforecited case of Santiago, seeking an
affirmative relief in court, whether in civil or criminal proceedings,
constitutes voluntary appearance.
FRANCESS A. PILONEO
JD-1A

PILONEO - 11 - G.R. No. 158763

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PILONEO - 11 - G.R. No. 158763

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 158763.

March 31, 2006

You might also like