Miranda et al. v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006

Crim Pro - Jurisdiction

Facts:

On March 1996, two burnt cadavers were discovered in Ramon, Isabela which were later identified as the bodies of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao, son of the private respondent Virgilio Tuliao who is now under the witness protection program.

            Two Informations for murder were filed against 5 police officers including SPO2 Maderal in the RTC of Santiago City. The venue was later transferred to the RTC of Manila. The RTC convicted the accused and sentenced them two counts of reclusion perpetua except SPO2 Maderal who was yet to be arraigned at that time being at large. Upon automatic review, the SC acquitted the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt.

            In Sept. 1999, Maderal was arrested. He executed a sworn confession and identified the petitioners as the ones responsible for the death of the victims, so, Tuliao filed a criminal complaint for murder against the petitioners. Acting Presiding Judge Tumaliuan issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioners and SPO2 Maderal.

            Then, the petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete preliminary investigation, to reinvestigate, and to recall or quash the warrant of arrest. In the hearing of the urgent motion, Judge Tumaliuan noted the absence of the petitioners and issued a Joint order denying the 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.

Issues: Whether or not an accused can seek judicial relief if he does not submit his person to the jurisdiction of the court.

Whether or not a motion to quash a warrant of arrest requires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

Held. No, one who seeks affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the Jurisdiction of the Court. 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.

            Citing Santiago v. Vasquez, there is a distinction between the custody of the 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.