B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL 32 [August 6, 1991]

Miranda v Tuliao Miranda v Tuliao

I. Recit-ready summary Micu, SPO2 Rodel Maderal, and SPO4 Emilio Ramirez in the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Santiago City.
Two burnt cadavers were discovered in Purok Nibulan, Ramon,
Isabela. On September 1999, SP02 Mardeal was arrested. He executed a The venue was later transferred to Manila. On 22 April 1999, the RTC
sworn confession and identified petitioners Jose Miranda, SP03 Ocon, of Manila convicted all of the accused and sentenced them to two counts of
SP03 Dalmacio, a certain Boyet dela Cruz and Amado Doe, as the persons reclusion perpetua except SPO2 Maderal who was yet to be arraigned at
responsible for the death of Vicente Buazon and Elizar Tualiao. Judge that time, being at large.
Tumaliuan noted the absence of petitioners and issued a Joint order
denying said urgent motion on the ground that, since the Court did not Sometime in September 1999, SPO2 Maderal was arrested. On 27
acquire jurisdiction over their persons, the motion cannot be properly April 2001, he executed a sworn confession and identified petitioners Jose
heard by the Court. The issue was whether or not an accused can seek C. Miranda, PO3 Romeo B. Ocon, and SPO3 Alberto P. Dalmacio, a certain
judicial relief if he does not submit his person to the jurisdiction of the Boyet dela Cruz and Amado Doe, as the persons responsible for the deaths
court? The Supreme Court held that adjudication of a motion to quash a of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao.
warrant of arrest requires neither jurisdiction over the person of the
accused, nor custody of law over the body of the accused. Custody of the Tuliao filed a criminal complaint for murder against Boyet dela Cruz,
law is required before the court can act upon the application for bail, but and Amado Doe, and submitted the sworn confession of SPO2 Maderal. On
is not required for the adjudication of other reliefs sought by the defendant 25 June 2001, Acting Presiding Judge Wilfredo Tumaliuan issued warrants
where the mere application therefor constitutes a waiver of the defense of of arrest against the petitioners and SPO2 Maderal.
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
General rule: One who seeks affirmative relief is deemed to have On 29 June 2001, petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete
submitted to the Jurisdiction of the Court. preliminary investigation, to reinvestigate, and to recall and/or quash the
Exception to the Rule: warrants of arrest.
1. Civil cases, motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, whether or not In the hearing of the urgent motion on 6 July 2001, Judge Tumaliuan
other grounds for dismissal are included. noted the absence of petitioners and issued a Joint Order denying said
2. Criminal cases, motion to quash a complaint on the ground of urgent motion on the ground that, since the court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the accused jurisdiction over their persons, the motion cannot be properly heard by the
3. Motion to Quash a warrant of arrest – Legality of Court court. In the meantime, petitioners appealed the resolution of State
process forcing the submission of the person of the accused. Prosecutor Leo T. Reyes to the Department of Justice.

II. Facts of the case On 17 August 2001, the new Presiding Judge Anastacio D. Anghad
took over the case and issued a Joint Order reversing the Joint Order of
On 8 March 1996, two burnt cadavers were discovered in Purok Judge Tumaliuan. Consequently, he ordered the cancellation of the warrant
Nibulan, Ramon, Isabela, which were later identified as the dead bodies of of arrest issued against petitioner Miranda. He likewise applied this Order
Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao, son of Virgilio Tuliao. to petitioners Ocon and Dalmacio in an Order dated 21 September 2001.
State Prosecutor Leo S. Reyes and respondent Tuliao moved for the
Two informations for murder were filed against SPO1 Wilfredo reconsideration of the said Joint Order and prayed for the inhibition of
Leaño, SPO1 Ferdinand Marzan, SPO1 Ruben B. Agustin, SPO2 Alexander Judge Anghad, but the motion for reconsideration was denied in a Joint

G.R. NO: 158736 PONENTE: Chico Nazario, J

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Eminent domain, taking DIGEST MAKER: Ian

Miranda v Tuliao Miranda v Tuliao

Order dated 16 October 2001 and the prayer for inhibition was denied in a
Joint Order dated 22 October 2001. In criminal cases, jurisdiction over the person of the accused is
deemed waived by the accused when he files any pleading seeking an
III. Issue/s affirmative relief, except in cases when he invokes the special jurisdiction
1. Whether or not an accused can seek judicial relief if he does not of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over his person. On the other
submit his person to the jurisdiction of the court? YES. hand, in special appearance, the general rule applies, i.e., the accused is
deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court upon
IV. Ratio/Legal Basis seeking affirmative relief. Notwithstanding this, there is no requirement for
him to be in the custody of the law.
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 reliefs SC hold that the circumstances to require custody of the law in
sought by the defendant where the mere application therefor constitutes a applications for bail are not present in motions to quash the warrant of
waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. arrest. If they allow the granting of bail to persons not in the custody of the
law, it is foreseeable that many persons who can afford the bail will remain
Custody of the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary at large, and could elude being held to answer for the commission of the
surrender, while jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon offense if ever he is proven guilty. On the other hand, if they allow the
his arrest or voluntary appearance. quashal of warrants of arrest to persons not in the custody of the law, it
would be very rare that a person not genuinely entitled to liberty would
The Supreme Court ruled that a general rule, one who seeks an remain scot-free.
affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the
court. As the Court held in the case of Santiago v. Vasquez, seeking an V. Disposition
affirmative relief in court, whether in civil or criminal proceedings,
constitutes voluntary appearance. However, there is an exception to the rule WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 18
that filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary December 2002 and the Resolution dated 12 June 2003 of the Court of
appearance, and the consequent submission of one’s person to the Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification that Criminal Cases
jurisdiction of the court. This is in the case of pleadings whose prayer is No. 36-3523 and No. 36-3524 be transferred to and raffled in the Regional
precisely for the avoidance of the jurisdiction of the court, which only leads Trial Court of the City of Manila.
to a special appearance. These pleadings are:
(1) in civil cases, motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of VI. Notes
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, whether or not other grounds
for dismissal are included; Adjudication of a motion to quash a warrant of arrest requires neither
(2) in criminal cases, motions to quash a complaint on the ground of jurisdiction over the person of the accused, nor custody of law over the
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused; and body of the accused.
(3) motions to quash a warrant of arrest. The first two are
consequences of the fact that failure to file them would constitute a waiver There is an exception to the rule that filing pleadings seeking
of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person. The third is a affirmative relief constitutes voluntary appearance, and the consequent
consequence of the fact that it is the very legality of the court process submission of one's person to the jurisdiction of the court. This is in the
forcing the submission of the person of the accused that is the very issue in case of pleadings whose prayer is precisely for the avoidance of the
a motion to quash a warrant of arrest.

G.R. NO: 158736 PONENTE: Chico Nazario, J

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Eminent domain, taking DIGEST MAKER: Ian

Miranda v Tuliao Miranda v Tuliao

jurisdiction of the court, which only leads to a special appearance. These

The first two are consequences of the fact that failure to file them
would constitute a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the
person. The third is a consequence of the fact that it is the very legality of
the court process forcing the submission of the person of the accused that is
the very issue in a motion to quash a warrant of arrest.

G.R. NO: 158736 PONENTE: Chico Nazario, J

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Eminent domain, taking DIGEST MAKER: Ian