Jose C. Miranda et al. vs. Virgilio M. Tuliao

G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006; per Chico-Nazario, J.

Facts

Respondent Virgilio Tuliao filed a criminal complaint for murder against petitioners, Boyet dela Cruz, and Amado Doe. Acting Presiding Judge Wilfredo Tumaliuan issued warrants of arrest against petitioners and SPO2 Maderal. Petitioners then filed an urgent motion to complete preliminary investigation, to reinvestigate, and to recall and/or quash the warrants of arrest. In the hearing of the urgent motion, Judge Tumaliuan noted the absence of petitioners and issued a Joint Order denying said 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.

The new Presiding Judge Anastacio D. Anghad took over the case and issued a Joint Order reversing the Joint Order of Judge Tumaliuan. Respondent Tuliao prayed for a Temporary Restraining Order, seeking to enjoin Judge Anghad from further proceeding with the case, which the Court granted. Shortly after the aforesaid resolution, Judge Anghad issued a Joint Order dismissing the two Informations for murder against petitioners. Respondent Tuliao filed with this Court a Motion to Cite Public Respondent in Contempt, alleging that Judge Anghad "deliberately and willfully committed contempt of court when he issued the said order dismissing the informations for murder."

Issue

Whether or not the court has lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused

Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that accused is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court upon seeking affirmative relief. Seeking an affirmative relief in court, whether in civil or criminal proceedings, constitutes voluntary appearance, except 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. However, in cases not involving the so-called special appearance, the general rule applies, i.e., the accused is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court upon seeking affirmative relief. Notwithstanding this, there is no requirement for him to be in the custody of the law.