[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
105 views1 page

Miranda V Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006

The bodies of two men were found burned in Isabela province. Petitioners filed a motion to complete the preliminary investigation, reinvestigate, and recall or quash the arrest warrant. The judge denied the motion, citing lack of jurisdiction over the petitioners. The Supreme Court ruled that seeking affirmative relief constitutes submission to the court's jurisdiction, so a motion to quash a warrant can be adjudicated without jurisdiction over the accused or custody of their body. Jurisdiction over the person is not required to rule on requests for relief from the defendant.

Uploaded by

Lyle Bucol
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
105 views1 page

Miranda V Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006

The bodies of two men were found burned in Isabela province. Petitioners filed a motion to complete the preliminary investigation, reinvestigate, and recall or quash the arrest warrant. The judge denied the motion, citing lack of jurisdiction over the petitioners. The Supreme Court ruled that seeking affirmative relief constitutes submission to the court's jurisdiction, so a motion to quash a warrant can be adjudicated without jurisdiction over the accused or custody of their body. Jurisdiction over the person is not required to rule on requests for relief from the defendant.

Uploaded by

Lyle Bucol
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Miranda v Tuliao, G.R. No.

158763, March 31, 2006


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.
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 a motion to quash a warrant of arrest requires jurisdiction over the
person of the accused.
Ruling. 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
defendant where by mere application, thereof, constitutes a waiver of the defence of lack
of jurisdiction over the person accused.

You might also like