Pangilinan vs.

CA
321 SCRA 51
December 17, 1999
FACTS:
Mila Pangilinan was charged and convicted of the Crime of Estafa before the RTC, a crime cognizable by MTC. He
brought the case to Court of !!eal for new trial but the same was denied. "n her Petition for Review on Certiorari
to the #u!reme Court, she alleged that the $ecision of the trial court is null and void for lac% of &urisdiction over the
crime charged. Relying in the land mar% case of Ti&am vs. #ibanghanoy, the 'ffice of the #olicitor (eneral contends
that the a!!ellant is barred from raising the issue of &urisdiction, esto!!els having already set in.
ISS!:
)hether or not Mila (. Pangilinan is barred for raising the issue of lac% of &urisdiction over the sub&ect matter,
having esto!!els already set in*
"!#D:
+o. The 'ffice of the #olicitor (eneral,s reliance on the said ruling -Ti&am vs. #ibanghanoy. is mis!laced. The
doctrine laid down in the Ti&am case is an e/ce!tion to and not the general rule. Esto!!el attached to the !arty
assailing the &urisdiction of the court as it was the same !arty who sought recourse in the said forum. "n the case at
bar, a!!ellant cannot in anyway be said to have invo%ed the &urisdiction of the trial court.
San$iag% vs. &as'(e)
217 SCRA *33
+an(ar, 27, 1993
FACTS:
n information was filed against !etitioner with the #andiganbayan for violation of the nti (raft and Corru!t
Practices ct. The order of arrest was issued with bail for release fi/ed at Ph!. 01,222 so she filed a motion for
acce!tance of cash bail bond. 'n the same day the #andiganbayan issued a resolution authorizing the !etitioner to
!ost cash bond which the later filed in the amount of Ph!.01, 222. Her arraignment was set, but !etitioner as%ed for
the cancellation of her bail bond and that she be allowed !rovisional release on recognizance. The #andiganbayan
deferred it. The #andiganbayan issued a hold de!arture order against !etitioner, by reason of the announcement she
made that she would be leaving for the 3.#. to acce!t a fellowshi! a Harvard. "n the instant motion she submitted
before the #.C. she argues that her right to travel is im!aired.
ISS!:
)hether or not the !etitioner4s right to travel is im!aired.
"!#D:
The !etitioner does not deny and as a matter of fact even made a !ublic statement, that she he every intension of
leaving the country to !ursue higher studies abroad. The court u!holds the course of action of the #andiganbayan in
ta%ing &udicial notice of such fact of !etitioners !al to go abroad and in thereafter issuing a sua s!onte the hold
de!arture order is but an e/ercise of res!ondent court4s inherent !ower to !reserve and to maintain effectiveness of
its &urisdiction over the case and the !erson of the accused.
lso, the !etitioner assumed obligations, when she !osted bail bond. #he holds herself amenable at all times to the
orders and !rocess of eth court. #he may legally be !rohibited from leaving the country during the !endency of the
case. -Manotoc v. C...
An$i-%r.a +r. vs. /arc0i$%rena
321 SCRA 551
December 23, 1999
FACTS:
ccused Mayor 5icerio nti!orda and others were charged for the crime of %idna!!ing, the case was filed in the
first division of #andiganbayan. #ubse6uently, the Court ordered the !rosecution to submit amended information,
which was com!lied evenly and the new information contained the !lace where the victim was brought.
The accused filed an 3rgent 'mnibus Motion !raying that a reinvestigation be conducted and the issuance of
warrants of arrest be deferred but it was denied by the 'mbudsman. The accused thereafter filed a Motion for +ew
Preliminary investigation and to hold in abeyance and7or recall warrant of arrest issued but the same was also
denied. #ubse6uently, the accused filed a Motion to 8uash mended "nformation for lac% of &urisdiction over the
offense charged, which was ignored for their continuous refusal to submit their selves to the Court and after their
voluntary a!!earance which invested the #andiganbayan &urisdiction over their !ersons, their motion for
reconsideration was again denied.
ISS! 1%. 1:
)'+ the #andiganbayan had &urisdiction over the offense charged.
"!#D:
+o. The original "nformation filed with the #andiganbayan did not mention that the offense committed by the
accused is office9related. "t was only after the same was filed that the !rosecution belatedly remembered that a
&urisdictional fact was omitted therein.
However, we hold that the !etitioners are esto!!ed from assailing the &urisdiction of the #andiganbayan for in the
su!!lemental arguments to motion for reconsideration and7or reinvestigation filed with the same court, it was they
who :challenged the &urisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over the case and clearly stated in their Motion for
Reconsideration that the said crime is wor% connected.
"t is a well9settled rule that a !arty cannot invo%e the &urisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his
o!!onent, and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, re!udiate or 6uestion that same &urisdiction.
)e therefore hold that the #andiganbayan has &urisdiction over the case because of esto!!el and it was thus vested
with the authority to order the amendment of the "nformation.
ISS! 1%. 2:
)'+ reinvestigation must be made anew.
"!#D:
+o. reinvestigation is !ro!er only if the accused4s substantial rights would be im!aired. "n the case at bar, we do
not find that their rights would be unduly !re&udiced if the mended "nformation is filed without a reinvestigation
ta%ing !lace. The amendments made to the "nformation merely describe the !ublic !ositions held by the
accused7!etitioners and stated where the victim was brought when he was %idna!!ed.
"t must here be stressed that a !reliminary investigation is essentially in6uisitorial, and it is often the only means of
discovering the !ersons who may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the !rosecutor to !re!are his
com!laint or information. "t is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no !ur!ose e/ce!t that of determining
whether a crime has been committed and whether there is !robable cause to believe that the accused is guilty
thereof, and it does not !lace the !ersons accused in &eo!ardy. "t is not the occasion for the full and e/haustive
dis!lay of the !arties4 evidence; it is for the !resentation of such evidence only as may engender a well9grounded
belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is !robably guilty thereof.
The !ur!ose of a !reliminary investigation has been achieved already and we see no cogent nor com!elling reason
why a reinvestigation should still be conducted.
2iran.a vs. T(lia%
/.R. 1%. 1537*3
2arc0 31, 244*
FACTS:
'n Mar. 0<<=, > burnt cadavers were discovered in Ramon, "sabela which were later identified as the bodies of
?icente @auzon and Elizer Tuliao, son of the !rivate res!ondent ?irgilio Tulio who is now under the witness
!rotection !rogram.
> informations for murder were filed against the 1 !olice officer including #P'> Maderal in RTC of #antiago City.
The venue was later transferred to Manila. RTC Manila convicted all the accused and sentenced them > counts of
reclusion !er!etua e/ce!t #P'> Maderal who was yet to be arraigned at that time, being at large. 3!on automatic
review, the #C ac6uitted the four accused on the ground of reasonable doubt.
"n #e!t. 0<<<, Maderal was arrested. He e/ecuted a sworn confession and identified the herein !etitioner Miranda
and A others res!onsible for the death of the victims. Res!ondent Tuliao then filed a criminal com!laint for murder
against the !etitioners. cting Presiding Budge Tumalian issued warrant of arrest against the !etitioners and #P'>
Maderal.
Petitioners filed an urgent motion to com!lete !reliminary investigation, to reinvestigate, and to recall or 6uash the
warrant of arrest. "n the hearing of the urgent motion, Budge Tumalian noted the absence of !etitioners and issued a
Boint order denying the said urgent motion on the ground that since the court did not ac6uire &urisdiction over their
!ersons, the motion cannot be !ro!erly heard by the court. The !etitioners a!!ealed the resolution of the Public
!rosecutor to the $'B.
The new Presiding Budge named Budge nghad too% over the case and issued a Boint 'rder reversing the Boint 'rder
of Budge Tumalian. He also ordered the cancellation of the warrant of arrest. Res!ondent Tulia filed a !etition for
certiorari, mandamus and !rohibition with a !rayer for TR' see%ing to en&oin Budge nghad from further
!roceeding of the case and see%ing to nullify the Boint 'rders of the said Budge. The #C issued a resolution granting
the !rayer. +otwithstanding the said resolution, Budge nghad issued a Boint 'rder dismissing the information
against the !etition.
Res!ondent Tuliao filed a motion to cite Budge nghad in contem!t. The #C referred the said motion to the C. The
C rendered the assailed decision granting the !etition and ordering the reinstatement of the criminal cases in the
RTC of #antiago City as well as the issuance of warrant of arrest. Hence, this !etition.
ISS!:
)hether or not an accused cannot see% any &udicial relief if he does not submit his !erson to the &urisdiction of the
court
"!#D:
Petition is dismissed and cost against the !etitioners. "t has been held that an accused cannot see% &udicial relief is he
does not submit his !erson to the &urisdiction of the court. Burisdiction over the accused can be ac6uired either
through com!ulsory !rocess, such as warrant of arrest or through his voluntary a!!earance, such as when he
surrender to the !olice or to the court. "t is only when the court has already ac6uired &urisdiction over his !erson that
an accused may invo%e the !rocesses of the court. #ince, !etitioner were not arrested or otherwise de!rived of their
liberty, they cannot see% &udicial relief.
C%5(angc% +r. vs. San.iganba,an
344 SCRA 3*7
December 21, 1993
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon a probable cause to be determined personally by the
judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
The clause unequivocally means that the judge must make his own determination independent of that of the
prosecutor of whether there is probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest, based on the complainants and his
witnesses accounts, if any. !upporting evidence other than the report and recommendation of the investigators and
the special prosecutor should be examined by the court
FACTS:
Banuary 0>, 0<<2, a com!laint was filed by the 'ffice of the #olicitor (eneral before the Presidential Commission
on (ood (overnment -PC((., !etitioner, former dministrator of the Phili!!ine Coconut uthority -PC., and the
former members of the PC (overning @oard, !etitioner among them, for violation of Re!ublic ct +o. C20<, the
nti9(raft and Corru!t Practices ct for having cons!ired and confederated together and ta%ing undue advantage of
their !ublic !ositions and7or using their !owers; authority, influence, connections or relationshi! with the former
President Derdinand E. Marcos and former Dirst 5ady, "melda Romualdez9Marcos without authority, granted a
donation in the amount of Two Million Pesos -P>,222,222.22. to the Phili!!ine Coconut Producers Dederation
-C'C'DE$., a !rivate entity, using PC s!ecial fund, thereby giving C'C'DE$ unwarranted benefits, advantage
and !reference through manifest !artiality, evident bad faith and gross ine/cusable negligence to the grave - sic. and
!re&udice of the Dili!ino !eo!le and to the Re!ublic of the Phili!!ines.

#ubse6uently, however, the Court ruled that all !roceedings in the !reliminary investigation conducted by the PC((
were null and void and the PC(( was directed to transmit the com!laints and records of the case to the 'ffice of the
'mbudsman for a!!ro!riate action.

"n a Resolution dated Bune >, 0<<>, the !anel of investigators recommended the filling of an "nformation for
violation of #ection C-e. of R.. +o. C20<. Resolution dated Bune >, 0<<> was referred by ssistant 'mbudsman
belardo 5. !ortadera, Br. to the 'ffice of the #!ecial Prosecutor for review and if warranted, for the !re!aration
of the criminal information. "n a memorandum dated Buly l1, 0<<> the 'ffice of the #!ecial Prosecutor affirmed the
recommendation as contained in the Resolution dated Bune >, 0<<>. ugust 0<, 0<<> then 'mbudsman Conrado M.
?as6uez ordered the !anel of investigators to discuss the merits of the !re&udicial 6uestion !osed by res!ondent
5obregat. "n a Memorandum dated $ecember 0, 0<<C the !anel of investigators recommended that the motion to
sus!end !roceedings be granted. 'n $ecember C, 0<<C then 'mbudsman ?as6uez referred for comment to the
'ffice of the #!ecial Prosecutors the Memorandum dated $ecember 0, 0<<C of the !anel of investigators on the
issue of the e/istence of !re&udicial 6uestion. 'n Debruary 0E, 0<<1, an order for the arrest of !etitioner was issued
by the res!ondent #andiganbayan. 'n Debruary >>, 0<<1, !etitioner !osted bail. 'n the same day he li%ewise filed,
through counsel, a Manifestation stating that he was !osting bail without !re&udice to the '!!osition To "ssuance of
)arrant of rrest with Motion Dor 5eave To Dile a Motion Dor Reconsideration of the 'mbudsman,s Resolution
which he filed. "n a Resolution dated Debruary >2, 0<<1, the res!ondent #andiganbayan barred !etitioner from
leaving the country e/ce!t u!on a!!roval of the court. 'n May >1, 0<<1, !etitioner was conditionally arraigned
!leading not guilty to the "nformation. "n the meantime, in a Memorandum dated 'ctober >>, 0<<1, #!ecial
Prosecution 'fficer ?ictorio 3. Tabanguil found no !robable cause to warrant the filing against !etitioner and
recommended the dismissal of the case. The recommendation for dismissal was a!!roved by the Honorable
'mbudsman on +ovember 01, 0<<=. 'n $ecember 0C, 0<<= !etitioner filed an 3rgent Motion To $ismiss alleging
that with the reversal of the earlier findings of the 'mbudsman of !robable cause, there was therefore nothing on
record before the res!ondent #andiganbayan which would warrant the issuance of a warrant of arrest and the
assum!tion of &urisdiction over the instant case.
ISS!S:
0. )'+ the warrant of arrest issued by res!ondent #andiganbayan is null and void, or should now be lifted if
initially valid* FE#
>. )'+ the #andiganbayan still ac6uired &urisdiction over the !erson of the !etitioner* FE#
"!#D:
0. #andiganbayan had two !ieces of documents to consider when it resolved to issue the warrant of arrest
against the accusedG
a. the Resolution dated Bune >, 0<<> of the Panel of "nvestigators of the 'ffice of the 'mbudsman
recommending the filing of the "nformation and
b. the Memorandum dated Bune 0=, 0<<1 of the 'ffice of the #!ecial Prosecutor denying the e/istence of
a !re&udicial 6uestion which will warrant the sus!ension of the criminal case. The #andiganbayan had
nothing more to su!!ort its resolution.
>. The #andiganbayan failed to abide by the constitutional mandate of personally determining the e/istence of
!robable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest. The > cited document above were the !roduct of
somebody else4s determination, insufficient to su!!ort a finding of !robable cause by the #andiganbayan.
3. "n "oberts vs. #ourt of $ppeals,

the Court struc% down as invalid an order for the issuance of a warrant of
arrest which were based only on Hthe information, amended information and Boint ResolutionH, without the
benefit of the records or evidence su!!orting the !rosecutor,s finding of !robable cause.
4. "n %o vs. &eople,

the Court the res!ondent H!al!ably committed grave abuse of discretion in ipso
facto issuing the challenged warrant of arrest on the sole basis of the !rosecutor,s findings and
recommendation, and without determining on its own the issue of !robable cause based on evidence other
than such bare findings and recommendation.

1. )ith regards to &urisdiction, the rule is well9settled that the giving or !osting of bail by the accused is
tantamount to submission of his !erson to the &urisdiction of the court.

@y !osting bail, herein !etitioner
cannot claim e/em!tion effect of being sub&ect to the &urisdiction of res!ondent court. )hile !etitioner has
e/erted efforts to continue dis!uting the validity of the issuance of the warrant of arrest des!ite his !osting
bail, his claim has been negated when he himself invo%ed the &urisdiction of res!ondent court through the
filing of various motions that sought other affirmative reliefs.
6. "n 'a (aval )rug vs. #$

, 5ac% of &urisdiction over the !erson of the defendant may be waived either
e/!ressly or im!liedly. )hen a defendant voluntarily a!!ears, he is deemed to have submitted himself to
the &urisdiction of the court. "f he so wishes not to waive this defense, he must do so seasonably by motion
for the !ur!ose of ob&ecting to the &urisdiction of the court, otherwise, he shall be deemed to have submitted
himself to that &urisdiction. Moreover, HIwJhere the a!!earance is by motion for the !ur!ose of ob&ecting to
the &urisdiction of the court over the !erson, it must be for the sole and se!arate !ur!ose of ob&ecting to said
&urisdiction. "f the a!!earance is for any other !ur!ose, the defendant is deemed to have submitted himself
to the &urisdiction of the court. #uch an a!!earance gives the court &urisdiction over the !erson.


PA1/A1I6A1, J., concurring and dissenting o!inion;
s a conse6uence of the nullity of the warrant of arrest, the #andiganbayan did not ac6uire &urisdiction over the
!etitioner.
The !osting of a bail bond by the !etitioner des!ite the nullity or irregularity of the issuance of the warrant for his
arrest should not be e6uated with Hvoluntary a!!earanceH as to cloa% the res!ondent court with &urisdiction over his
!erson. Truly, his Ha!!earanceH in court was not Hvoluntary.H "t should be noted that immediately u!on learning of
the filling of the "nformation and the issuance of the warrant, !etitioner filed an H'!!osition to ItheJ "ssuance of IaJ
)arrant of rrest with Motion for 5eave to Dile Motion for Reconsideration of ItheJ 'mbudsmanI,sJ Resolutions.H
#aid '!!osition was based on the inade6uacy of the res!ondent court,s basis for determining !robable cause. *t was
essentially an express and continuing objection to the courts jurisdiction over his person.
)hen !etitioner !osted his bail bond, he e/!ressly manifested at the same time that such was Hwithout !re&udiceK to
his '!!osition.

Cres-% vs. 2%g(l
/.R. 1%. #753373
+(ne 34, 1937
FACTS:
!ril 0<EE, sst. Discal de (ala with a!!roval of the Provincial Discal filed an information for estafa against Cres!o
in the Circuit Criminal Court of 5ucena City. )hen the case was set for arraignment, Cres!o filed a motion to defer
arraignment on the ground that there was a !ending !etition for review filed with the #ec. of Bustice for the filing of
the information; which was denied. motion for reconsideration was denied too in order but the arraignment was
referred to ugust 0L, 0<<E to afford time for !etitioner to elevate the matter to the a!!ellate court.
!etition for certiorari and !rohibition with !rayer for a !reliminary writ of in&unction was filed by the accused in
the C, then C restrained Budge Mogul from !roceeding with arraignment until further orders.
'n March >>, 0<EL undersecretary of &ustice Mcaraig reversed the resolution of the Provincial Discal and directed
the fiscal to move for immediate dismissal of the information filed against Cres!o. motion to dismiss was then
filed by the Provincial Discal with the trial court attaching Macaraig,s letter. 'n +ovember 0<EL, &udge denied the
motion and set arraignment.M stating that the motion thrust induce the court to resolve the innocence of the accused
on evidence not before it but on that adduced before the undersecretary that disregards the re6uirements of due
!rocess but also erodes court,s inde!endence and integrity, motion denied.
Cres!o then filed a !etition certiorari, !rohibition and mandamus with !etition for the issuance of !reliminary writ
of !rohibition in the C. Praying that the decision to move on with arraignment be reversed and set aside declaring
the information filed not valid and of no legal force and effect and to dismiss the case and declare Cres!o,s
obligation as !urely civil.
ISS!:
)hether the trial court acting on a motion to dismiss a criminal case filed by the !rovincial fiscal u!on instructions
of the #ecretary of Bustice to whom the case was elevated for review, may refuse to grant the motion and insist on
the arraignment and trial on the merits.
"!#D:
Petition denied.
-0. "t is a cardinal !rinci!le that an criminal actions either commenced by com!laint or by information shall be
!rosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. 0E The institution of a criminal action de!ends u!on the
sound discretion of the fiscal. The reason for !lacing the criminal !rosecution under the direction and control of the
fiscal is to !revent malicious or unfounded !rosecution by !rivate !ersons. 0< "t cannot be controlled by the
com!lainant.
->. However, the action of the fiscal or !rosecutor is not without any limitation or control. The same is sub&ect to the
a!!roval of the !rovincial or city fiscal or the chief state !rosecutor as the case maybe and it maybe elevated for
review to the #ecretary of Bustice who has the !ower to affirm, modify or reverse the action or o!inion of the fiscal.
Conse6uently the #ecretary of Bustice may direct that a motion to dismiss the case be filed in Court or otherwise,
that an information be filed in Court.
-C. The filing of a com!laint or information in Court initiates a criminal action. The Court thereby ac6uires
&urisdiction over the case, which is the authority to hear and determine the case. The !reliminary investigation
conducted by the fiscal for the !ur!ose of determining whether a !rima facie case e/ists warranting the !rosecution
of the accused is terminated u!on the filing of the information in the !ro!er court.
-A. )hether the accused had been arraigned or not and whether it was due to a reinvestigation by the fiscal or a
review by the #ecretary of Bustice whereby a motion to dismiss was submitted to the Court, the Court in the e/ercise
of its discretion may grant the motion or deny it and re6uire that the trial on the merits !roceed for the !ro!er
determination of the case.
-1. "t is the duty of the fiscal to !roceed with the !resentation of evidence of the !rosecution to the Court to enable
the Court to arrive at its own inde!endent &udgment as to whether the accused should be convicted or ac6uitted.
-=. The rule therefore in this &urisdiction is that once a com!laint or information is filed in Court any dis!osition of
the case as its dismissal or the conviction or ac6uittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court.
lthough the fiscal retains the direction and control of the !rosecution of criminal cases even while the case is
already in Court he cannot im!ose his o!inion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole &udge on what to do
with the case before it. The determination of the case is within its e/clusive &urisdiction and com!etence. motion
to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court who has the o!tion to grant or deny the same.
"t does not matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a
reinvestigation or u!on instructions of the #ecretary of Bustice who reviewed the records of the investigation.