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 Jurisdiction over the person of the accused
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
Miranda v. Tuliao
Except in applications for bail, it is not necessary for
the court to first acquire jurisdiction over the person of
Facts: On 8 March 1996, burnt dead bodies of Vicente
the accused to dismiss the case or grant other relief.
Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao were discovered in Purok
Custody of the law is required before the court can act
Nibulan, Ramon, Isabela. Two informations for
upon the application for bail, but is not required for the
murder were filed. The RTC of Manila convicted all of
adjudication of other reliefs sought by the defendant
the accused therein and sentenced them to two counts
where the mere application therefor constitutes a
of reclusion perpetua except SPO2 Maderal who was
waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the
yet to be arraigned at that time, being at large. The case
person of the accused. Custody of the law is
was appealed to this Court on automatic review where
accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender,
we, on 9 October 2001, acquitted the accused therein
while jurisdiction over the person of the accused is
on the ground of reasonable doubt. Later on, SPO2
acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance
Maderal was arrested and he executed a sworn
confession and identified petitioners Jose Miranda,
SPO3 Ocon, SPO3 Dalmacio, a certain Boyet dela Cruz
As a general rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is
and Amado Doe, herein as the persons responsible.
deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the
Respondent filed a criminal complaint for murder court. As we held in the aforecited case of Santiago,
against petitioners et. al. and submitted the sworn seeking an affirmative relief in court, whether in civil
confession of SPO2 Maderal. On 25 June 2001, Acting or criminal proceedings, constitutes voluntary
Presiding Judge Wilfredo Tumaliuan issued warrants of appearance.
arrest against petitioners and SPO2 Maderal.
On 29 June 2001, petitioners filed an urgent motion
The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the
to complete preliminary investigation, to
court acquires jurisdiction over his person, is
reinvestigate, and to recall and/or quash the
accomplished either by his pleading to the merits (such
warrants of arrest.
as by filing a motion to quash or other pleadings
Judge Tumaliuan noted the absence of petitioners and requiring the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction
issued a Joint Order denying said urgent motion on the thereover, appearing for arraignment, entering trial) or
ground that, since the court did not acquire jurisdiction by filing bail. On the matter of bail, since the same is
over their persons, the motion cannot be properly heard intended to obtain the provisional liberty of the
by the court. In the meantime, petitioners appealed the accused, as a rule the same cannot be posted before
resolution of State Prosecutor Leo T. Reyes to the custody of the accused has been acquired by the judicial
Department of Justice. authorities either by his arrest or voluntary surrender.
Issues: Whether or not an accused cannot seek any
judicial relief if he does not submit his person to the
There is, however, an exception to the rule that filing
jurisdiction of the court;
pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes
voluntary appearance, and the consequent submission
of one’s person to the jurisdiction of the court. This is
Held/Ruling: NO. 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.
General Rule: One who seeks affirmative relief is
deemed to have submitted to the Jurisdiction of the
Court.
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused

1. Adjudication of a motion to quash a warrant

of arrest requires neither jurisdiction over
the person of the accused, nor custody of law
over the body of the accused.
David v. Agbay
Petitioner made the untruthful statement in the MLA, a
public document, that he is a Filipino citizen at the time
of the filing of said application, when in fact he was
then still a Canadian citizen. Under CA 63, the
governing law at the time he was naturalized as
Canadian citizen, naturalization in a foreign country
was among those ways by which a natural-born citizen
loses his Philippine citizenship. While he re-acquired
Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 six months later,
the falsification was already a consummated act, the
said law having no retroactive effect insofar as his dual
citizenship status is concerned.
Facts: In 1974, petitioner Renato M. David migrated to
Canada where he became a Canadian citizen by
naturalization. Upon their retirement, David and his
wife returned to the Philippines and purchased a lot
where they constructed a residential house. However,
they came to know that the portion where they built
their house is a public land and part of the salvage zone.
In April 2007, David filed a Miscellaneous Lease
Application (MLA) over the subject land wherein he
indicated that he is a Filipino citizen. Private
respondent Editha A. Agbay opposed the application
and she also filed a criminal complaint for falsification
of public documents (Art. 172, RPC). Meanwhile,
David re-acquired his Filipino citizenship in October
2007.
However, custody of the law is not required for the
adjudication of reliefs other than an application for bail.
In Miranda v. Tuliao, which involved a motion to quash
warrant of arrest, this Court discussed the distinction
between custody of the law and jurisdiction over the
person, and held that jurisdiction over the person of the
accused is deemed waived when he files any pleading
seeking an affirmative relief, except in cases when he
invokes the special jurisdiction of the court by
impugning such jurisdiction over his person.
Considering that petitioner sought affirmative relief in
filing his motion for re-determination of probable
cause, the MTC clearly erred in stating that it lacked
jurisdiction over his person. Notwithstanding such
erroneous ground stated in the MTC's order, the RTC
correctly ruled that no grave abuse of discretion was
committed by the MTC in denying the said motion for
lack of merit.
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused

The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor recommended

the filing of the information in court. David filed a
petition for review before the Department of Justice
(DOJ) but the same was denied. Meanwhile, CENRO
rejected David’s MLA, ruling that the latter’s
subsequent re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship did
not cure the defect in his MLA. Thereafter, an
information for Falsification of Public Document was
filed before the Municipal Trial Court and a warrant of
arrest was issued against the David. The latter then
filed an Urgent Motion for Re- Determination of
Probable Cause, which was denied. David’s petition
for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) was likewise denied.

Issue: Whether the MTC properly deny David’s motion

for re-determination of probable cause on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused?

Held/Ruling:

No. The MTC further cited lack of jurisdiction over the

person of petitioner accused as ground for denying
petitioner’s motion for redetermination of probable
cause, as the motion was filed prior to his arrest.
Colminares v. Villar
Facts: Petitioner Francisco Colmenares was charged
for illegal possession of firearms. He thereafter filed a
motion to quash the complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. It was claimed that venue was improperly
laid, because the firearms mentioned in the complaint
were taken from the possession of the accused in the
municipality of La Carlota, Negros Occidental, by the
La Carlota policemen, and not in La Castellana where
the complaint was filed. The motion was denied.
Hence, the accused went to the CFI of Negros
Occidental in a petition for certiorari, raising the same
issue of improper venue. And as prayed for in the
petition, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued by
said court, restraining the Municipal Judge of La
Castellana from proceeding with the trial.
Therein respondents Municipal Judge and Chief of
Police of La Castellana contended that although the
alleged unlicensed firearms were taken from the
custody of the accused by La Carlota policemen such
unlawful act of carrying unlicensed firearms started
from La Castellana; that the La Carlota policemen
intercepted the accused and took the firearms from him
only because they were earlier requested, by telephone,
by the policemen of La Castellana.
That the firearms were confiscated from him by the La
Carlota policemen within the territorial boundaries of
that municipality would not sustain the motion for
quashal of the complaint in this case nor affect the
merits thereof. It is not altogether improbable that the
offense of unlawful possession of firearms could have
been committed in La Castellana, as stated in the
complaint, and also in La Carlota, as manifested by the
appellant.
For, being malum prohibitum the crime is
consummated by the very fact of its performance; by
the firearms being possessed or held by the accused
without proper authorization therefor. The place where
the said firearms were finally confiscated and taken
away from the accused is immaterial; it could not have
added anything to the nature of the unlawful act
completed and consummated earlier.
Thus, for purposes of the proceeding instituted in the
La Castellana municipal court, it is sufficient that,
according to the prosecution, the accused was in
possession of the unlicensed firearms while he was in
La Castellana. To determine the correct venue, the vital
point is the allegation of the situs of the offense charged
in the complaint or information, and that is satisfied in
this case.

The court ordered the dismissal of the petition for lack

of merit.

Territorial Jurisdiction
Issue: Whether the Municipal Court of La Castellana
has no jurisdiction to take cognizance for the illegal
possession of firearms

Held/Ruling: NO. The Municipal Court of La

Castellana has no jurisdiction to take cognizance for the
illegal possession of firearms.

It must be remembered that the jurisdiction of the court

over a case is determined by the allegations of the
complaint or information. Here, the complaint filed
with the municipal court of La Castellana recited that
the accused was found in possession of two unlicensed
firearms in the municipality of La Castellana. That
allegation makes the filing of the case in the La
Castellana municipal court proper.

Under the Rules, criminal actions shall be instituted and

tried in the court of the municipality or province
wherein the offense was committed or any one of the
essential ingredients thereof took place.’
People v. Mission deadly weapon, but not to shoot him nor even to
threaten him
Facts: Eugenio Mission was accused before the Court
of First Instance of Cebu of grave coercion, After trial
he was found guilty of light threats.

He appealed to the Court of Appeals. But inasmuch as

in his brief he raised the question of jurisdiction of the
Court of First Instance to try the case.

At the trial the prosecution tried to prove the following

facts:

That when the defendant (Mission) saw Julian, he asked

the latter why he was continuing working on the land
when he had been told to discontinue his work, and
scolded him. Subsequently a there was a heated
argument between the Mission and Julian, during
which the defendant alighted from his horse, pulled his
pistol, calibre .45, and pointed it at Julian, asking him
whether he wanted to attack him. Julian answered that
he did not want to fight.

The defendant approached Julian and patted him on the

shoulder saying: "Thanks to God because you have not
assaulted me, otherwise I would have killed you."

On the other hand, the witnesses for Mission testified

in as follows:

After a conflict between Isabel and the wife of Julian,

the latter came. He was very furious. Facing the
accused, he said that before he would leave that land he
would sacrifice lives and there would be bloodshed.
Forthwith he drew his scythe and brandished it. The
defendant who was on horseback, backed his horse,
telling Julian to throw away his scythe; at the same time
the defendant grasped the handle of his (defendant's)
pistol which was hanging from his belt. The father-in-
law of Julian snatched away the latter's scythe. When
Julian was already disarmed, the defendant alighted
from his horse, approached Julian and patted him on the
shoulder. In a conciliatory tone, he admonished Julian
for his hostile attitude.

The trial court reached the conclusion that the narration

made by the witnesses for the defense is more logical
and natural. The court below remarks that Julian, being
of a nervous temperament and quite aggressive in
character. However, the court says that it did not
believe that Julian brandished his scythe

We believe that when the defendant grasped the handle

of his pistol, his purpose was to dissuade the furious and
nervous Julian from attacking him with the scythe, a
Luciano v. Mariano