View full case

JOSE C. MIRANDA v. VIRGILIO M. TULIAO

FACTS:

Petitioners filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ), requesting the respondent judge to cease and desist from proceeding with the criminal case and deferring the issuance of warrants of arrest against the accused. They relied on the case of Lacson v. Executive Secretary, where the accused filed a petition for certiorari alleging lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Sandiganbayan. In Lacson v. Executive Secretary, the court directed the Sandiganbayan to transfer the case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing and setting aside the Joint Orders of Judge Anastacio D. Anghad, and in affirming and reinstating the Order of Judge Wilfredo Tumaliuan on the alleged rule regarding the necessity of acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the accused before seeking judicial relief.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in directing the reinstatement of Criminal Cases No. 36-3523 and 36-3524 and in ordering the re-issuance of the warrants of arrest against the petitioners.

  3. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in reinstating Criminal Cases No. 36-3523 and 36-3524 despite the claim that the order of dismissal had become final and executory.

RULING:

  1. On the necessity of acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the accused

    • The Court held that while the custody of the law is required for applications for bail, it is not required for other judicial reliefs sought by the defendant. By filing a motion, the accused are considered to have voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court.

  2. On the reinstatement of criminal cases and re-issuance of warrants of arrest

    • The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals reinstating the criminal cases and warrants of arrest. The invalidation of the proceedings conducted by Judge Anghad results in the reinstatement of the previous warrants issued by Judge Tumaliuan.

  3. On the claim of double jeopardy and finality of dismissal orders

    • The Court ruled that double jeopardy does not apply as the dismissal occurred before arraignment and upon the motion of the accused. Furthermore, the reinstatement of the criminal cases does not violate the rule on finality of judgments since the appeal and other proceedings indicated the lack of finality.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Custody of the Law Required for bail but not necessarily for other judicial reliefs.

  • Voluntary Appearance The filing of motions seeking judicial relief constitutes voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction.

  • Grave Abuse of Discretion Quashing a warrant based on a pending appeal to the Secretary of Justice is considered grave abuse of discretion.

  • Probable Cause Probable cause must be substantiated by an independent judicial determination, not solely on a prosecutor’s certification.

  • Double Jeopardy Does not apply where the accused has not been arraigned, or the dismissal was upon the accused’s own motion.

  • Contempt Filing of antedated orders to avoid the effects of higher court orders could be construed as contempt and abuse of discretion.