Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 75 views

    A - Dalmacio V Tuliao (G.r. No. 158763, March 31, 2006)

    Uploaded by

    Anne Kerstine Bastinen
    Petitioners were accused of murder and filed a motion to complete preliminary investigation and quash arrest warrants. The motion was denied as petitioners did not submit themselves to the court's jurisdiction. Petitioners appealed but the Court of Appeals reinstated the criminal cases. Petitioners argued they could not seek judicial relief without submitting to the court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that an accused cannot seek judicial relief unless they submit to the court's jurisdiction, which is acquired through a warrant of arrest or voluntary surrender.

    Copyright:

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

    A - Dalmacio V Tuliao (G.r. No. 158763, March 31, 2006)

    Uploaded by

    Anne Kerstine Bastinen
    75 views1 page
    Petitioners were accused of murder and filed a motion to complete preliminary investigation and quash arrest warrants. The motion was denied as petitioners did not submit themselves to the court's jurisdiction. Petitioners appealed but the Court of Appeals reinstated the criminal cases. Petitioners argued they could not seek judicial relief without submitting to the court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that an accused cannot seek judicial relief unless they submit to the court's jurisdiction, which is acquired through a warrant of arrest or voluntary surrender.

    Original Title

    A_dalmacio v Tuliao (g.r. No. 158763, March 31, 2006)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioners were accused of murder and filed a motion to complete preliminary investigation and quash arrest warrants. The motion was denied as petitioners did not submit themselves to the court's jurisdiction. Petitioners appealed but the Court of Appeals reinstated the criminal cases. Petitioners argued they could not seek judicial relief without submitting to the court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that an accused cannot seek judicial relief unless they submit to the court's jurisdiction, which is acquired through a warrant of arrest or voluntary surrender.

    Copyright:

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

    A - Dalmacio V Tuliao (G.r. No. 158763, March 31, 2006)

    Uploaded by

    Anne Kerstine Bastinen
    Petitioners were accused of murder and filed a motion to complete preliminary investigation and quash arrest warrants. The motion was denied as petitioners did not submit themselves to the court's jurisdiction. Petitioners appealed but the Court of Appeals reinstated the criminal cases. Petitioners argued they could not seek judicial relief without submitting to the court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that an accused cannot seek judicial relief unless they submit to the court's jurisdiction, which is acquired through a warrant of arrest or voluntary surrender.

    Copyright:

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

    JOSE C. MIRANDA, ALBERTO P. DALMACIO, and ROMEO B.

    OCON, Petitioners, V.
    VIRGILIO M. TULIAO, Respondent.

    G.R. No. 158763            


    March 31, 2006

    FACTS

    The initially accused for the murders of Vincente Buazon and Elizer Tuliao who was at large - SPO2
    Maderal was arrested and executed a sworn statement and identified petitioners Miranda, Ocon,
    Dalmacio and a certain Boyet dela Cruz and Amado Doe, as the persons responsible for the deaths of
    Bauzon and Tuliao. Respondent Tuliao filed a criminal complaint for murder against the petitioners,
    Boyet dela Cruz and Amado Doe and submitted the sworn confession of Maderal.

    Petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete preliminary investigation and to recall or quash the
    warrants of arrest. On the hearing of the urgent motion Judge Tamaliuan noted the absence of
    petitioners and denied the urgent motion as the court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons.
    Petitioners then appealed the resolution of State Prosecutor Leo T. Reyes to the Department of Justice.
    The new Presiding Judge Anastacio D. Anghad took over the case ordered the cancellation of warrant of
    arrest issued against the petitioners. State Prosecutor Leo S. Reyes and respondent moved for the
    reconsideration of the said joint order and prayed for the inhibition of the Judge Anghad but was
    denied. Respondent appealed the case to Supreme Court and was referred to Court of Appeals where
    the petition was granted and reinstated the criminal cases in RTC of Santiago City. Miranda et al. filed a
    petition that the Court of Appeals erred in directing the reinstatement of Judge Tumaliuan’s order at an
    accused cannot seek any judicial relief if he does not submit his person to the jurisdiction of the court.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not the accused can seek for judicial relief if he does not submit his person to the
    jurisdiction of the court

    RULING

    No, an accused cannot seek any judicial relief if he does not submit his person to the jurisdiction of the
    court. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused may be acquired either through compulsory process,
    such as warrant of arrest, or through his voluntary appearance, such as when he surrenders to the police
    or to the court. It is only when the court has already acquired jurisdiction over his person that an
    accused may invoke the processes of the court (Pete M. Pico vs. Alfonso V. Combing, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-
    91-764, November 6, 1992). Thus, an accused must first be placed in the custody of the law before the
    court may validly act on his petition for judicial reliefs

    You might also like