Balboa motion to dismiss, appearing for arraignment, or

entering trial) or by filing bail. But how could accused-

People v. Ery KEHAYA and Marvin COGHILL
movants be considered to have voluntarily appeared
TL;DR: Petitioners were in the United States when for the submission of their persons or bodies to the
the trial for murder ensued. Some of the accused trial court when their persons or bodies are beyond
were acquitted. With this, petitioners argue that they the territorial limits of the Court in which their
should be acquitted and that the court has jurisdiction supposed appearance was made? To our mind,
over their persons despite being in the US because voluntary appearance is premised on the assumption
they submitted the motion to dismiss. The CA ruled that the accused concerned are within Philippine
that voluntary appearance is premised on the territory, otherwise the so-called voluntary appearance
assumption that the accused concerned are within is an exercise of futility. Accused are half-in and half-
Philippine territory, otherwise the so-called out, for while protection is prayed from the
voluntary appearance is an exercise of futility.
Philippine court, yet in the same breath they refuse
to place themselves under the physical control of the
Facts: A panel of 5 government prosecutors filed an
said court by remaining in the US where their arrest
information for murder in the CFI of Sulu against 12
can never be effected in the event their motion to
accused in connection with eh death of Meinhart
dismiss is denied and the murder case against them
Spielman in the sea nearest to the island of Laminuan,
ordered to proceed.
Municipality of Siasi, Sulu. The RTC ruled that of the
12 accused, 2 were discharged from the information to Jurisdiction over the persons or bodies of the accused is
become state witness. 4 were not identified during the indispensable for the lower court to act on their motion
trial and two Ery Kehaya and Marvin Coghill were to dismiss. Where there is no principal, there is no
never arrested since they left the Philippines. Hence, the accessory. Whatever was said by the lower court with
court did not acquire jurisdiction over them. The lower respect to accused Kehaya and Coghill in the discussion
court rendered judgment acquitting Marquez on the of the evidence is merely incidental and never intended
ground of reasonable doubt and finding Jubaol, hara, to prove their guilt or innocence considering there can
and Lawing guilty. A year after the decision, Kehaya be no trial in absentia. The judgment of the court must
and Coghill filed with the court a motion to dismiss the be distinguished from its opinion.
information against them alleging that on the basis of
the evidence submitted by the prosecution, the court Dispositive: Order is set aside.
completely absolved defendants Kehaya and Coghill.
Because of the fact that they are in the US, the said
accused opened their motion to dismiss the information
by stating that they are submitting themselves to the
jurisdiction of the court for the sole purpose of securing
the dismissal of the information against them. The
prosecution filed an opposition.
The lower court ruled that since the court has not
acquired jurisdiction over the persons of Kehaya and
Coghill, it cannot render judgment or issue and order
dismissing the case against them. In spite of such, the
lower court ruled that since the case will remain
pending and would contribute to the clogging of the
court’s docket, it dismissed the case.
Issue: Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction
over the persons of Kehaya and Coghill
Ruling: NO
Jurisdiction over the person is acquired by either
warrant or voluntary appearance. The latter is
accomplished either by pleading to the merits (filing