Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
order of arrest that the petitioner could hardly he expected to defy. In fact,
apparently cowed by the "invitation," he went without protest (and in informal
clothes and slippers only) with the officers who had come to fetch him. Note that
Under R.A. No. 7438, the requisites of a "custodial investigation" are applicable even
to a person not formally arrested but merely "invited" for questioning. Petitioner
was right when he contended that such arrest wasnot under those included in valid
warrantless arrest under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court because only the
testimonies were relied upon regarding the identification of petitioner, so that
arresting officer had no personal knowledge nor were present during the
commission of the crime. Neither it has just been committed because arrest took
place 46 days after the crime was perpetrated. However, even if the original arrest
was illegal, the RTC later on acquired jurisdiction on his person by virtue of the
warrant issued to him and co-accused. Even on the assumption that no warrant was
issued at all, the trial court still lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
petitioner.
Filing of charges, and the issuance of the corresponding warrant of arrest, against a
person invalidly detained will cure the defect of that detention or at least deny him
the right to be released because of such defect.
RULING:
Yes. Criminal and civil actions for damages in cases of written defamations shall be
filed simultaneously or separately with the RTC to the exclusion of all other courts. A
subsequent enactment of a law defining the jurisdiction of other courts cannot
simply override, in the absence of an express repeal or modification, the specific
provision in the RPC vesting in the RTC, as aforesaid, jurisdiction over defamations
in writing or by similar means. The grant to the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over
offenses committed in relation to (public) office, similar to the expansion of the
jurisdiction of the MTCs, did not divest the RTC of its exclusive and original
jurisdiction to try written defamation cases regardless of whether the offense is
committed in relation to office. Since jurisdiction over written defamations
exclusively rests in the RTC without qualification, it is unnecessary and futile for the
parties to argue on whether the crime is committed in relation to office.