Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    Miranda Vs Tuliao

    Uploaded by

    Junmer Ortiz
    This summary outlines a legal case regarding a murder investigation and trial. Two burnt cadavers were discovered and five police officers were initially convicted but one was still at large. That officer was later arrested and identified other individuals. Those individuals then filed motions with the court but were not present at a hearing, so the court denied their motions since they were not in custody. The ruling discusses the distinction between custody of the law and jurisdiction over a person, finding that custody is required for bail applications but not for other motions where appearing waives jurisdiction objections.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Miranda Vs Tuliao

    Uploaded by

    Junmer Ortiz
    8 views1 page
    This summary outlines a legal case regarding a murder investigation and trial. Two burnt cadavers were discovered and five police officers were initially convicted but one was still at large. That officer was later arrested and identified other individuals. Those individuals then filed motions with the court but were not present at a hearing, so the court denied their motions since they were not in custody. The ruling discusses the distinction between custody of the law and jurisdiction over a person, finding that custody is required for bail applications but not for other motions where appearing waives jurisdiction objections.

    Original Title

    3. Miranda vs Tuliao

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This summary outlines a legal case regarding a murder investigation and trial. Two burnt cadavers were discovered and five police officers were initially convicted but one was still at large. That officer was later arrested and identified other individuals. Those individuals then filed motions with the court but were not present at a hearing, so the court denied their motions since they were not in custody. The ruling discusses the distinction between custody of the law and jurisdiction over a person, finding that custody is required for bail applications but not for other motions where appearing waives jurisdiction objections.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    8 views1 page

    Miranda Vs Tuliao

    Uploaded by

    Junmer Ortiz
    This summary outlines a legal case regarding a murder investigation and trial. Two burnt cadavers were discovered and five police officers were initially convicted but one was still at large. That officer was later arrested and identified other individuals. Those individuals then filed motions with the court but were not present at a hearing, so the court denied their motions since they were not in custody. The ruling discusses the distinction between custody of the law and jurisdiction over a person, finding that custody is required for bail applications but not for other motions where appearing waives jurisdiction objections.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Nature and Definition

    Miranda vs 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.

    Two Informations for murder were filed against 5 police officers including SPO2 Maderal in the RTC of
    Santiago City. The venue was later transferred to the RTC of Manila. The RTC convicted the accused
    and sentenced them two counts of reclusion perpetua except SPO2 Maderal who was yet to be
    arraigned at that time being at large. Upon automatic review, the SC acquitted the accused on the
    ground of reasonable doubt.

    In Sept. 1999, Maderal was arrested. He executed a sworn confession and identified the petitioners as
    the ones responsible for the death of the victims, so, Tuliao filed a criminal complaint for murder
    against the petitioners. Acting Presiding Judge Tumaliuan issued a warrant of arrest against the
    petitioners and SPO2 Maderal.

    Then, 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.

    Issue:

    Is Custody of the law required before the court can act upon the application for bail?

    Ruling:

    Yes. 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 sought by the defendant where the mere application
    therefor constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Our
    pronouncement in Santiago shows a distinction between 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 reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere application
    therefor constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
    Custody of the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender, while jurisdiction over the
    person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. One can be under the
    custody of the law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, such as when a
    person arrested by virtue of a warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant. On the
    other hand, one can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, and yet not be in the
    custody of the law, such as when an accused escapes custody after his trial has commenced. Being in
    the custody of the law signifies restraint on the person, who is thereby deprived of his own will and
    liberty, binding him to become obedient to the will of the law. Custody of the law is literally custody
    over the body of the accused. It includes, but is not limited to, detention.

    A person applying for admission to bail must be in the custody of the law or otherwise deprived of his
    liberty. A person who has not submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court has no right to invoke
    the processes of that court.

    You might also like