Chester De Joya vs. Judge Placido C. Marquez, et al.

G.R. No. 162416, January 31, 2006; per Azucena, J.

Facts

The documents found in the records Criminal Case No. 03-219952 and examined by respondent judge tend to show that therein private complainant was enticed to invest a large sum of money in State Resources Development Management Corporation; that he issued several checks amounting to Php 114,286,086.14 in favor of the corporation; that the corporation in turn, issued several checks to private complainant, purportedly representing the return of his investments; that said checks were later dishonored for insufficient funds and closed account; that petitioner and his co-accused, being incorporators and directors of the corporation, had knowledge of its activities and transactions.

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to nullify and set aside the warrant of arrest issued by respondent judgeBut despite seeking relief through a petition, the defendant refuses to surrender and submit to the lower court’s jurisdiction in the belief of lack of probable and improper issuance of a warrant.

Issue

Whether or not petitioner may be allowed to obtain relief from the courts without submitting to its jurisdiction.

Ruling

The Court ruled that petitioner is not entitled to seek relief from this Court nor from the trial court as he continuously refuses to surrender and submit to the court’s jurisdiction. The court acquires jurisdiction to try the case, even if it has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of a nonresident defendant, as long as it has jurisdiction over the res, as when the action involves the personal status of the plaintiff or property in the Philippines in which the defendant claims an interest. On the contrary, petitioner’s continued refusal to submit to the court’s jurisdiction should give this Court more reason to uphold the action of the respondent judge. The purpose of a warrant of arrest is to place the accused under the custody of the law to hold him for trial of the charges against him. His evasive stance shows an intent to circumvent and frustrate the object of this legal process. It should be remembered that he who invokes the court’s jurisdiction must first submit to its jurisdiction.