G.R. No. 158763 March 31, 2006
JOSE C.
MIRANDA, ALBERTO P. DALMACIO, and ROMEO B. OCON
vs.
VIRGILIO M. TULIAO
vs.
VIRGILIO M. TULIAO
FACTS:
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 for the deaths of Vicente
Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao 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.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the
court has lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
HELD:
Yes, in criminal cases, jurisdiction over the
person of the accused is deemed waived by the accused when he files any
pleading seeking an affirmative relief, except in cases when he invokes the
special jurisdiction of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over his
person. Therefore, in narrow cases involving special appearances, an accused
can invoke the processes of the court even though there is neither jurisdiction
over the person nor custody of the law. However, if a person invoking the
special jurisdiction of the court applies for bail, he must first submit
himself to the custody of the law.
In cases not
involving the so-called special appearance, the general rule applies, i.e., the
accused is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court
upon seeking affirmative relief. Notwithstanding this, there is no requirement
for him to be in the custody of the law. The following cases best illustrate
this point, where we granted various reliefs to accused who were not in the
custody of the law, but were deemed to have placed their persons under the
jurisdiction of the court. Note that none of these cases involve the
application for bail, nor a motion to quash an information due to lack of
jurisdiction over the person, nor a motion to quash a warrant of arrest.
JOSE C.
MIRANDA, ALBERTO P. DALMACIO, and ROMEO B. OCON
vs.
VIRGILIO M. TULIAO
vs.
VIRGILIO M. TULIAO
FACTS:
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 for the deaths of Vicente
Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao 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.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the
court has lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
HELD:
Yes, in criminal cases, jurisdiction over the
person of the accused is deemed waived by the accused when he files any
pleading seeking an affirmative relief, except in cases when he invokes the
special jurisdiction of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over his
person. Therefore, in narrow cases involving special appearances, an accused
can invoke the processes of the court even though there is neither jurisdiction
over the person nor custody of the law. However, if a person invoking the
special jurisdiction of the court applies for bail, he must first submit
himself to the custody of the law.
In cases not
involving the so-called special appearance, the general rule applies, i.e., the
accused is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court
upon seeking affirmative relief. Notwithstanding this, there is no requirement
for him to be in the custody of the law. The following cases best illustrate
this point, where we granted various reliefs to accused who were not in the
custody of the law, but were deemed to have placed their persons under the
jurisdiction of the court. Note that none of these cases involve the
application for bail, nor a motion to quash an information due to lack of
jurisdiction over the person, nor a motion to quash a warrant of arrest.