AI Summary
AI Summary
A court need not acquire custody of the law over the person of the accused before acting on motions to quash a warrant of arrest or other pleadings seeking affirmative relief, except in applications for bail or pleadings that specifically challenge the court's jurisdiction over the person. However, the quashal of a warrant of arrest or dismissal of a criminal case based on grounds such as a pending petition for review with the DOJ or a prior acquittal of different accused in a related case constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
Five hundred twenty Phil.
FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. one hundred fifty-eight seven six three. March thirty-one, two thousand six ] JOSE C. MIRANDA, ALBERTO P. DALMACIO, AND ROMEO B. OCON, PETITIONERS, VS. VIRGILIO M. TULIAO, RESPONDENT. DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J .:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule forty-five of the Rules of Court, assailing the eighteen December two thousand two Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. six seven seven zero and its twelve June two thousand three Resolution denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. The dispositive portion of the assailed decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, finding public respondent Judge Anastacio D. Anghad to have acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Orders, the instant petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition is hereby GRANTED and GIVEN DUE COURSE, and it is hereby ordered:
One. The assailed Joint Order dated-August seventeen, two thousand one, Order dated September twenty-one, two thousand one, Joint Order dated October sixteen, two thousand one and Joint Order dated November fourteen, two thousand one dismissing the two Informations for Murder, all issued by public respondent Judge Anastacio D. Anghad in Criminal Cases Nos. thirty-six three five two three and thirty-six three five two four are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and another entered UPHOLDING, AFFIRMING, and REINSTATING the Order dated June twenty-five, two thousand one and Joint Order dated July six, two thousand one issued by the then acting Presiding Judge Wilfredo Tumaliuan;
Two. Criminal Cases Nos. thirty-six three five two three and thirty-six three five two four are hereby ordered REINSTATED in the docket of active criminal cases of Branch thirty-six of the Regional Trial Court of Santiago City, Isabela; and
Three. Public respondent Judge Anastacio D. Anghad is DIRECTED to ISSUE forthwith Warrants of Arrest for the apprehension of private respondents Jose "Pempe" Miranda, SPO3 Alberto P. Dalmacio, PO3 Romeo B. Ocon and accused Rodel T. Maderal in said Criminal Cases Nos. thirty-six three five two three and thirty-six three five two four.
The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follows:
On eight March nineteen ninety-six, two burnt cadavers were discovered in Purok Nibulan, Ramon, Isabela, which were later identified as the dead bodies of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao, son of private respondent Virgilio Tuliao who is now under the witness protection program.
Two informations for murder were filed against SPO1 Wilfredo Leaño, SPO1 Ferdinand Marzan, SPO1 Ruben B. Agustin, SPO2 Alexander Micu, SPO2 Rodel Maderal, and SPO4 Emilio Ramirez in the Regional Trial Court of Santiago City.
The venue was later transferred to Manila. On twenty-two April nineteen ninety-nine, the Regional Trial Court of Manila convicted all of the accused and sentenced them to two counts of reclusion perpetua except SPO2 Maderal who was yet to be arraigned at that time, being at large. The case was appealed to this Court on automatic review where we, on nine October two thousand one, acquitted the accused therein on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Sometime in September nineteen ninety-nine, SPO2 Maderal was arrested. On twenty-seven April two thousand one, he executed a sworn confession and identified petitioners Jose C. Miranda, PO3 Romeo B. Ocon, and SPO3 Alberto P. Dalmacio, a certain Boyet dela Cruz and Amado Doe, as the persons responsible for the deaths of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao.
Respondent Tuliao filed a criminal complaint for murder against petitioners, Boyet dela Cruz, and Amado Doe, and submitted the sworn confession of SPO2 Maderal. On twenty-five June two thousand one, Acting Presiding Judge Wilfredo Tumaliuan issued warrants of arrest against petitioners and SPO2 Maderal.
On twenty-nine June two thousand one, petitioners filed an urgent motion to complete preliminary investigation, to reinvestigate, and to recall and/or quash the warrants of arrest.
In the hearing of the urgent motion on six July two thousand one, Judge Tumaliuan noted the absence of petitioners and issued a Joint Order denying said urgent motion on the ground that, since the court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons, the motion cannot be properly heard by the court. In the meantime, petitioners appealed the resolution of State Prosecutor Leo T. Reyes to the Department of Justice.
On seventeen August two thousand one, the new Presiding Judge Anastacio D. Anghad took over the case and issued a Joint Order reversing the Joint Order of Judge Tumaliuan. Consequently, he ordered the cancellation of the warrant of arrest issued against petitioner Miranda. He likewise applied this Order to petitioners Ocon and Dalmacio in an Order dated twenty-one September two thousand one. State Prosecutor Leo S. Reyes and respondent Tuliao moved for the reconsideration of the said Joint Order and prayed for the inhibition of Judge Anghad, but the motion for reconsideration was denied in a Joint Order dated sixteen October two thousand one and the prayer for inhibition was denied in a Joint Order dated twenty-two October two thousand one.
On twenty-five October two thousand one, respondent Tuliao filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition with this Court, with prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order, seeking to enjoin Judge Anghad from further proceeding with the case, and seeking to nullify the Orders and Joint Orders of Judge Anghad dated seventeen August two thousand one, twenty-one September two thousand one, sixteen October two thousand one, and twenty-two October two thousand one.
On twelve November two thousand one, this Court issued a Resolution resolving to grant the prayer for a temporary restraining order against Judge Anghad from further proceeding with the criminal cases. Shortly after the aforesaid resolution, Judge Anghad issued a Joint Order dated fourteen November two thousand one dismissing the two Informations for murder against petitioners. On nineteen November two thousand one, this Court took note of respondent's cash bond evidenced by O.R. No. one five nine two four five three two dated fifteen November two thousand one, and issued the temporary restraining order while referring the petition to the Court of Appeals for adjudication on the merits.
Respondent Tuliao filed with this Court a Motion to Cite Public Respondent in Contempt, alleging that Judge Anghad "deliberately and willfully committed contempt of court when he issued on fifteen November two thousand one the Order dated fourteen November two thousand one dismissing the informations for murder." On twenty-one November two thousand one, we referred said motion to the Court of Appeals in view of the previous referral to it of respondent's petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.
On eighteen December two thousand two, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision granting the petition and ordering the reinstatement of the criminal cases in the RTC of Santiago City, as well as the issuance of warrants of arrest against petitioners and SPO two Maderal. Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of this Decision, but the same was denied in a Resolution dated twelve June two thousand three.
Hence, this petition.
The facts of the case being undisputed, petitioners bring forth to this Court the following assignments of error:
First Assignment of Error
First Assignment of Error
With all due respect, the Honorable Court of Appeals gravely erred in reversing and setting aside the Joint Order of Judge Anastacio D. Anghad dated August seventeen, two thousand one, September twenty-one, two thousand one, October sixteen, two thousand one and November fourteen, two thousand one issued in criminal cases numbered thirty-six-three-five-two-three and thirty-six-three-five-two-four; and, erred in upholding, affirming and reinstating the Order dated July six, two thousand one issued by then Acting Presiding Judge Wilfredo Tumaliuan, on the alleged rule that an accused cannot seek any judicial relief if he does not submit his person to the jurisdiction of the court.