Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. No.

158763, March 31, 2006

FACTS

 Petitioners were charged with two counts of murder for the deaths of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer
Tuliao (son of respondent). The deceased were burned. One of the accused, SPO2 Maderal (not
part of the petitioners) was not arraigned as he was at large.The petitioners were found guilty
and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. On automatic review, the SC acquitted them on
reasonable doubt.After the above events, Maderal was arrested and executed a sworn
confession and identified the petitioners as the persons responsible for the deaths of the
deceased.Private respondent Tuliao then filed a criminal complaint for murder against the
petitioners.The petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete preliminary investigation, to
reinvestigate and to recall, and/or QUASH THE WARRANTS OF ARREST.The judge originally
handling the case, Judge Tumaliuan, noted the absence of the 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. The judge who replaced
the earlier judge, Judge Anghad, reversed the previous judge’s order and dismissed the case
against petitioners.

Upon appeal, the CA reinstated the order of Judge Tumaliuan and ordered the criminal cases of
murder against the petitioners to be reinstated.

ISSUE

WON adjudication of a MOTION TO QUASH A WARRANT OF ARREST requires either jurisdiction over the
person of the accused or custody over the body of the accused.

RULING

No. The rule is that, in criminal cases, jurisdiction over the person of the accused is deemed waived
(hence, you then submit yourself to the jurisdiction of the court) 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 (you question the jurisdiction of the court). In such cases where
jurisdiction is impugned, such as MOTIONS TO QUASH A COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF
JURISDICTION OVER THE ACCUSED and MOTION TO QUASH A WARRANT OF ARREST, an accused can
invoke the processes of the court EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NEITHER JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON
NOR CUSTODY OF THE LAW. In cases not involving 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.

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. In narrow cases involving special appearances (required for
motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in civil cases;
and motions to quash a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused
and motions to quash a warrant of arrest in criminal cases) an accused can invoke the processes of the
court even though there is neither jurisdiction over the person nor custody of the law.