Danilo B Policarpio Jr Criminal Procedure
JD 2.5 B
[Miranda et al vs. Tuliao]
[G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006]
Facts: This case arose from the discovery on 8 March 1996 of two burnt cadavers in Isabela,
later identified as Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao, son of Virgilio Tuliao, who was placed
under the witness protection program. Two informations for murder were initially filed against
several police officers, including SPO2 Rodel Maderal, before the RTC of Santiago City. The
venue was transferred to Manila, where in 1999 the RTC convicted the accused, except Maderal
who remained at large. On automatic review, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused in 2001
due to reasonable doubt. Maderal was later arrested and, in April 2001, executed a sworn
confession naming Jose C. Miranda, PO3 Romeo Ocon, SPO3 Alberto Dalmacio, and others as
co-perpetrators. Based on this, new murder complaints were filed, and the acting judge, Judge
Tumaliuan, issued warrants of arrest. Petitioners moved to quash the warrants and reinvestigate,
but Judge Tumaliuan denied the motion, stating the court had not acquired jurisdiction over
them. Later, Judge Anghad took over and reversed the previous orders, cancelling the arrest
warrants and eventually dismissing the cases. Respondent Tuliao sought relief via a petition for
certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition, and the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining
order, then referred the case to the Court of Appeals. Despite this, Judge Anghad issued a
dismissal order on 14 November 2001. The Court of Appeals ruled on 18 December 2002 that
Judge Anghad acted with grave abuse of discretion and ordered reinstatement of the criminal
cases and the reissuance of arrest warrants. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on
12 June 2003, prompting them to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the
Supreme Court, asserting errors in the Court of Appeals’ rulings.
Issue: Whether an accused who is not in the custody of the law may validly invoke judicial relief
and thereby submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
Ruling: Yes. An accused who is not in the custody of the law may still seek judicial relief,
such as filing a motion to quash or for reinvestigation, and by doing so—except in the case
of a special appearance solely to challenge jurisdiction—he is deemed to have voluntarily
submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. Custody of the law is required only when
applying for bail, not for invoking other forms of judicial relief.
Doctrine on Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused – As explained in Santiago v.
Vasquez, jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired either by arrest or
voluntary appearance. Voluntary appearance includes filing pleadings seeking affirmative
relief (except special appearances challenging jurisdiction), even if the accused is not in
custody.
Doctrine on Custody of the Law and Bail – As stated in Feliciano v. Pasicolan, custody of
the law is required only in applications for bail, not for other motions like quashal of
warrants or motions for reinvestigation.."
In this case, The Supreme Court ruled that jurisdiction over the person of the accused may be
acquired either through arrest or voluntary appearance, such as by filing pleadings that seek
affirmative relief except when such pleadings are for the specific purpose of contesting
jurisdiction (a special appearance). Custody of the law, which entails physical restraint or
surrender, is required only when applying for bail but not for filing motions like those to quash
warrants of arrest or to seek reinvestigation. The Court held that the Court of Appeals was
correct in reversing the trial court's orders quashing the arrest warrants and dismissing the
criminal cases. Judge Anghad gravely abused his discretion by quashing the warrants solely due
to the filing of a petition for review before the DOJ and based on the political climate, both of
which are not valid grounds under the Constitution. He further erred in dismissing the murder
cases based on the Supreme Court’s acquittal of different accused in a separate case (Leaño),
since such acquittal was based only on reasonable doubt and did not invalidate the testimony of
the key prosecution witness in the present cases. Additionally, there was no violation of the rule
against double jeopardy because the dismissals occurred before arraignment and upon the motion
of the accused. The Court emphasized that a previously dismissed criminal case may be
reinstated without violating double jeopardy and that a nullified proceeding effectively revives
the orders it previously set aside, including the original warrants of arrest. Thus, the Court
ordered the transfer of the cases to the RTC of Manila and directed the issuance of the arrest
warrants anew.
"In God we trust, all others must bring data"
Page 1 of 2
Danilo B Policarpio Jr Criminal Procedure
JD 2.5 B
Therefore, an accused who is not in the custody of the law may validly invoke judicial relief and
thereby submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
For recit
The petitioners were accused of double murder and sought to quash the warrants of arrest
issued against them. However, they were not yet in the custody of the law—they had not
been arrested nor had they surrendered. The issue was whether the trial court had
jurisdiction over their persons when they filed motions seeking judicial relief, specifically a
motion to quash the warrants and a motion for reinvestigation.
The Court held that jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired in one of two
ways:
1. By arrest or physical custody, or
2. By voluntary appearance before the court, which includes the filing of pleadings
that seek affirmative relief.
In this case, the accused filed an “Urgent Motion to Quash Warrants of Arrest and/or
Motion for Reinvestigation.” This was not a special appearance (which is allowed only to
challenge the court’s jurisdiction), but rather a request for substantive relief. By doing so,
the Court ruled that the accused voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the
trial court, even if they were not in actual custody.
The Court further clarified that custody of the law is not a prerequisite to invoke other
judicial remedies (like filing motions to quash or reinvestigate), but is required only when
applying for bail.
Therefore, even though the petitioners had not been arrested or had not surrendered, they
were still considered as having submitted to the jurisdiction of the court because they
actively participated in the proceedings by asking for affirmative relief.
This case reinforces the principle that jurisdiction over the person of the accused attaches
when he takes steps that recognize the authority of the court, even without being under
actual physical custody.
"In God we trust, all others must bring data"
Page 2 of 2
