[G.R. No. 134307. December 21, 1998.
] the dismissal of the case and was approved by the
EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., Petitioner, v.
SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION) and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
FACTS: A complaint was filed against the former
Administrator of the PCA and the former members of
the PCA Governing Board for violation of R.A. No.
3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as
amended. In said complaint, the respondents were
charged for having conspired and confederated together
and taking undue advantage of their public positions
and/or using their powers, authority, influence,
connections or relationship with the former President
and former First Lady Marcos without authority granted
a donation in the amount of P2,000,000.00 to the
COCOFED, using PCA special fund, thereby giving
COCOFED unwarranted benefits, advantage and
preference through manifest partiality, evident bad faith
and gross inexcusable negligence. This Court ruled that
all proceedings in the preliminary investigation
conducted by the PCGG were null and void and the
PCGG was directed to transmit the complaints and
records of the case to the Office of the Ombudsman for
appropriate action. In a Resolution, the panel of
investigators recommended the filing of Information for
violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The
Resolution was referred by Assistant Ombudsman
Aportadera, Jr. to the Office of the Special Prosecutor
for review and if warranted, for the preparation of the
criminal information and the latter affirmed the
recommendation. In a Memorandum the panel of
investigators recommended that the motion to suspend
proceedings be granted. Ombudsman Vasquez referred
for comment to the Office of the Special Prosecutor the
Memorandum of the panel of investigators on the issue
of the existence of prejudicial question. An order for the
arrest of petitioner was issued by the respondent
Sandiganbayan and petitioner posted bail. On the same
day he likewise filed a Manifestation stating that he was
posting bail without prejudice to the Opposition To
Issuance of Warrant of Arrest with Motion For Leave To
File a Motion For Reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s
Resolution which he filed. In a Resolution, the
respondent Sandiganbayan barred petitioner from
leaving the country except upon approval of the court.
Petitioner was conditionally arraigned pleading not
guilty to the Information. In a Memorandum Special
Prosecution Officer Tabanguil found no probable cause
to warrant the filing against petitioner and the other
accused in Criminal Case No. 22018 and recommended
Honorable Ombudsman. Petitioner filed an Urgent
Motion To Dismiss alleging that with the reversal of the
earlier findings of the Ombudsman of probable cause,
there was therefore nothing on record before the
respondent Sandiganbayan which would warrant the
issuance of a warrant of arrest and the assumption of
jurisdiction over the instant case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the warrant of arrest issued by
respondent Sandiganbayan is null and void, or should
now be lifted if initially valid.
RULING: 1. Yes. The Sandiganbayan failed to abide by
the constitutional mandate of personally determining the
existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant of
arrest. The Sandiganbayan had two pieces of documents
to consider when it resolved to issue the warrant of arrest
against the accused: (1) the Resolution of the Panel of
Investigators of the Office of the Ombudsman
recommending the filing of the Information and (2) the
Memorandum of the Office of the Special Prosecutor
denying the existence of a prejudicial question which
will warrant the suspension of the criminal case. The
Sandiganbayan had nothing more to support its
resolution.
In Roberts v. Court of Appeals, the Court struck down as
invalid an order for the issuance of a warrant of arrest
which were based only on ‘’the information, amended
information and Joint Resolution", without the benefit of
the records or evidence supporting the prosecutor’s
finding of probable cause.
And in Ho v. People, the Court declared that respondent
"palpably committed grave abuse of discretion in ipso
facto issuing the challenged warrant of arrest on the sole
basis of the prosecutor’s findings and recommendation,
and without determining on its own the issue of probable
cause based on evidence other than such bare findings
and recommendation."
The rule is well-settled that the giving or posting of bail
by the accused is tantamount to submission of his person
to the jurisdiction of the court. By posting bail, herein
petitioner cannot claim exemption from the effect of
being subject to the jurisdiction of respondent court.
While petitioner has exerted efforts to continue disputing
the validity of the issuance of the warrant of arrest
despite his posting bail, his claim has been negated when
he himself invoked the jurisdiction of respondent court
through the filing of various motions that sought other
affirmative reliefs. In La Naval Drug v. CA, lack of
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.