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.