Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 287 views

    Miranda v. Tuliao G.R. No. 158763 31 March 2006

    Uploaded by

    Jemson Ivan Walcien
    The Supreme Court ruled that while generally seeking affirmative relief from a court constitutes submitting to its jurisdiction, there are exceptions. One exception is for pleadings that specifically aim to avoid the court's jurisdiction, like motions to quash a warrant of arrest. The petitioners in this case filed such a motion, arguing the court did not have jurisdiction over them since they were not present at the hearing. The Supreme Court agreed, finding the petitioners' motion was a special appearance that did not waive their objection to the court's jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    Miranda v. Tuliao G.R. No. 158763 31 March 2006

    Uploaded by

    Jemson Ivan Walcien
    287 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that while generally seeking affirmative relief from a court constitutes submitting to its jurisdiction, there are exceptions. One exception is for pleadings that specifically aim to avoid the court's jurisdiction, like motions to quash a warrant of arrest. The petitioners in this case filed such a motion, arguing the court did not have jurisdiction over them since they were not present at the hearing. The Supreme Court agreed, finding the petitioners' motion was a special appearance that did not waive their objection to the court's jurisdiction.

    Original Title

    07. Miranda v. Tuliao.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that while generally seeking affirmative relief from a court constitutes submitting to its jurisdiction, there are exceptions. One exception is for pleadings that specifically aim to avoid the court's jurisdiction, like motions to quash a warrant of arrest. The petitioners in this case filed such a motion, arguing the court did not have jurisdiction over them since they were not present at the hearing. The Supreme Court agreed, finding the petitioners' motion was a special appearance that did not waive their objection to the court's jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    287 views2 pages

    Miranda v. Tuliao G.R. No. 158763 31 March 2006

    Uploaded by

    Jemson Ivan Walcien
    The Supreme Court ruled that while generally seeking affirmative relief from a court constitutes submitting to its jurisdiction, there are exceptions. One exception is for pleadings that specifically aim to avoid the court's jurisdiction, like motions to quash a warrant of arrest. The petitioners in this case filed such a motion, arguing the court did not have jurisdiction over them since they were not present at the hearing. The Supreme Court agreed, finding the petitioners' motion was a special appearance that did not waive their objection to the court's jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Miranda v.

    Tuliao
    G.R. No. 158763 31 March 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. Petitioners argue that jurisdiction over their person was
    already acquired by the court by their filing of the urgent motion.

    Issue:
    Does the court have jurisdiction over the person seeking judicial relief?

    Ruling:
    Yes. As a general rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted
    to the jurisdiction of the court. As held in the case of Santiago v. Vasquez, seeking an affirmative
    relief in court, whether in civil or criminal proceedings, constitutes voluntary appearance.
    However, an exception to the rule is in the case of pleadings whose prayer is precisely for
    the avoidance of the jurisdiction of the court, which only leads to a special appearance. These
    pleadings are: (1) in civil cases, motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
    person of the defendant, whether or not other grounds for dismissal are included; (2) in criminal
    cases, motions to quash a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
    accused; and (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 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.
    Therefore, in narrow cases involving special appearances, an accused can invoke the
    processes of the court even though there is neither jurisdiction over the person nor custody of the
    law. However, if a person invoking the special jurisdiction of the court applies for bail, he must
    first submit himself to the custody of the law.

    You might also like