PEOPLE v.

ARUTA
FACTS: In the morning of 13 Dec 1988, the law enforcement ofcers received
information from an informant named Benjie that a certain Aling osa wo!ld "e
leaving for Bag!io #it$ on 1% Dec 1988 and wo!ld "e "ac& in the afternoon of the
same da$ carr$ing with her a large vol!me of marij!ana' At ()3* in the evening of
1% Dec 1988, Ar!ta alighted from a +ictor$ ,iner B!s carr$ing a travelling "ag even
as the informant -ointed her o!t to the law enforcement ofcers' .A#/0 ofcers
a--roached her and introd!ced themselves as .A#/0 agents' 1hen as&ed "$ ,t2
A"ello a"o!t the contents of her travelling "ag, she gave the same to him' 1hen
the$ o-ened the same, the$ fo!nd dried marij!ana leaves' Ar!ta was then "ro!ght
to the .A#/0 ofce for investigation2
ISSUE: 1hether or not the cond!cted search and sei3!re is constit!tional2
HELD) 4he 5# r!led in favor of Ar!ta and has noted that some dr!g trafc&ers are
"eing freed d!e to technicalities2 Ar!ta cannot "e said to "e committing a crime2
.either was she a"o!t to commit one nor had she j!st committed a crime2 Ar!ta
was merel$ crossing the street and was not acting in an$ manner that wo!ld
engender a reasona"le gro!nd for the .A#/0 agents to s!s-ect and concl!de that
she was committing a crime2 It was onl$ when the informant -ointed to Ar!ta and
identi6ed her to the agents as the carrier of the marij!ana that she was singled o!t
as the s!s-ect2 4he .A#/0 agents wo!ld not have a--rehended Ar!ta were it not
for the f!rtive 6nger of the informant "eca!se, as clearl$ ill!strated "$ the evidence
on record, there was no reason whatsoever for them to s!s-ect that acc!sed7
a--ellant was committing a crime, e8ce-t for the -ointing 6nger of the informant2
4he 5# co!ld neither sanction nor tolerate as it is a clear violation of the
constit!tional g!arantee against !nreasona"le search and sei3!re2 .either was
there an$ sem"lance of an$ com-liance with the rigid re9!irements of -ro"a"le
ca!se and warrantless arrests2 #onse9!entl$, there was no legal "asis for the
.A#/0 agents to e:ect a warrantless search of Ar!ta;s "ag, there "eing no
-ro"a"le ca!se and the acc!sed7a--ellant not having "een lawf!ll$ arrested2 5tated
otherwise, the arrest "eing inci-ientl$ illegal, it logicall$ follows that the s!"se9!ent
search was similarl$ illegal, it "eing not incidental to a lawf!l arrest2 4he
constit!tional g!arantee against !nreasona"le search and sei3!re m!st -erforce
o-erate in favor of acc!sed7a--ellant2 As s!ch, the articles sei3ed co!ld not "e !sed
as evidence against acc!sed7a--ellant for these are fr!its of a -oisoned tree and,
therefore, m!st "e rejected, -!rs!ant to Article III, 5ec2 3<=> of the #onstit!tion2
PEOPLE v. AMINNUDIN
FACTS) Idel Aminn!din, acc!sed7a--ellant was arrested on ?!ne =@, 198%, shortl$
after disem"ar&ing from the 0A+ 1ilcon 9 at a"o!t 8)3* in the evening, in Iloilo #it$2
4he B# ofcers who were in fact waiting for him "eca!se of a ti- from one their
informers sim-l$ accosted him, ins-ected his "ag and 6nding what loo&ed li&e
marij!ana leaves too& him to their head9!arters for investigation2 4he two "!ndles
of s!s-ect articles were con6scated from him and later ta&en to the .BI la"orator$
for e8amination2 It was fo!nd to contain three &ilos of what were later anal$3ed as
marij!ana leaves "$ an .BI forensic e8aminer2 Information for violation of the
Dangero!s Dr!gs Act was 6led against him2 ,ater, the information was amended to
incl!de Carida Ali $ Dassen, who had also "een arrested with him that same evening
and li&ewise investigated2 Both were arraigned and -leaded not g!ilt$2
5!"se9!entl$, the 6scal 6led a motion to dismiss the charge against Ali on the "asis
of a sworn statement of the arresting ofcers a"solving her after a Ethoro!gh
investigation2F 4he motion was granted, and trial -roceeded onl$ against the
acc!sed7a--ellant, who was event!all$ convicted2 In his defense, Aminn!din
disclaimed the marij!ana, averring that all he had in his "ag was his clothing
consisting of a jac&et, two shirts and two -airs of -ants2 De alleged that he was
ar"itraril$ arrested and immediatel$ handc!:ed2 Dis "ag was con6scated witho!t a
search warrant2 At the B# head9!arters, he was manhandled to force him to admit
he was carr$ing the marij!ana, the investigator hitting him with a -iece of wood in
the chest and arms even as he -arried the "lows while he was still handc!:ed2 De
insisted he did not even &now what marij!ana loo&ed li&e and that his "!siness was
selling watches and sometimes cigarettes2 Dowever the 4# rejected his allegations2
5a$ing that he onl$ has two watches d!ring that time and that he did not
s!fcientl$ -roved the inj!ries allegedl$ s!stained2
ISSUE) 1hether or not search of defendant;s "ag is legal2
HELD) 4he search was illegal2 Defendant was not ca!ght in Gagrante delicto, which
co!ld allow warrantless arrest or search2 At the moment of his arrest, he was not
committing a crime2 .or was he a"o!t to do so or had j!st done so2 4o all
a--earances, he was li&e an$ of the other -assengers innocentl$ disem"ar&ing from
the vessel2 4he said marij!ana therefore co!ld not "e a--reciated as evidence
against the defendant, and f!rthermore he is ac9!itted of the crime as charged2
MIRANDA v. TULIAO
FACTS) /n 0ar2 199(, = "!rnt cadavers were discovered in amon, Isa"ela which
were later identi6ed as the "odies of +icente Ba!3on and Hli3er 4!liao, son of the
-rivate res-ondent +irgilio 4!lio who is now !nder the witness -rotection -rogram2
4wo informations for m!rder were 6led against the @ -olice ofcer incl!ding 5B/=
0aderal in 4# of 5antiago #it$2 4he ven!e was later transferred to 0anila2 4#
0anila convicted all the acc!sed and sentenced them to = co!nts of recl!sion
-er-et!a e8ce-t 5B/= 0aderal who was $et to "e arraigned at that time, "eing at
large2 I-on a!tomatic review, the 5# ac9!itted the fo!r acc!sed on the gro!nd of
reasona"le do!"t2 In 5e-t2 1999, 0aderal was arrested2 De e8ec!ted a sworn
confession and identi6ed the herein -etitioner 0iranda and % others res-onsi"le for
the death of the victims2 es-ondent 4!liao then 6led a criminal com-laint for
m!rder against the -etitioners2 Acting Bresiding ?!dge 4!malian iss!ed warrant of
arrest against the -etitioners and 5B/= 0aderal2 Betitioners 6led an !rgent motion
to com-lete -reliminar$ investigation, to reinvestigate, and to recall or 9!ash the
warrant of arrest2 In the hearing of the !rgent motion, ?!dge 4!malian noted the
a"sence of -etitioners and iss!ed a ?oint order den$ing the said !rgent motion on
the gro!nd that since the co!rt did not ac9!ire j!risdiction over their -ersons, the
motion cannot "e -ro-erl$ heard "$ the co!rt2 4he -etitioners a--ealed the
resol!tion of the B!"lic -rosec!tor to the D/?2 4he new Bresiding ?!dge named ?!dge
Anghad too& over the case and iss!ed a ?oint /rder reversing the ?oint /rder of
?!dge 4!malian2 De also ordered the cancellation of the warrant of arrest2
es-ondent 4!lia 6led a -etition for certiorari, mandam!s and -rohi"ition with a
-ra$er for 4/ see&ing to enjoin ?!dge Anghad from f!rther -roceeding of the case
and see&ing to n!llif$ the ?oint /rders of the said ?!dge2 4he 5# iss!ed a resol!tion
granting the -ra$er2 .otwithstanding the said resol!tion, ?!dge Anghad iss!ed a
?oint /rder dismissing the information against the -etition2 es-ondent 4!liao 6led a
motion to cite ?!dge Anghad in contem-t2 4he 5# referred the said motion to the #A2
4he #A rendered the assailed decision granting the -etition and ordering the
reinstatement of the criminal cases in the 4# of 5antiago #it$ as well as the
iss!ance of warrant of arrest2 Dence, this -etition2
ISSUE) 1hether or not an acc!sed cannot see& an$ j!dicial relief if he does not
s!"mit his -erson to the j!risdiction of the co!rt2
HELD) Betition is dismissed and cost against the -etitioners2 It has "een held that
an acc!sed cannot see& j!dicial relief is he does not s!"mit his -erson to the
j!risdiction of the co!rt2 ?!risdiction over the acc!sed can "e ac9!ired either
thro!gh com-!lsor$ -rocess, s!ch as warrant of arrest or thro!gh his vol!ntar$
a--earance, s!ch as when he s!rrender to the -olice or to the co!rt2 It is onl$ when
the co!rt has alread$ ac9!ired j!risdiction over his -erson that an acc!sed ma$
invo&e the -rocesses of the co!rt2 5ince, -etitioner were not arrested or otherwise
de-rived of their li"ert$, the$ cannot see& j!dicial relief2
DOCTRINE) Adj!dication of a motion to 9!ash a warrant of arrest neither
j!risdiction over the -erson of the acc!sed, nor c!stod$ of law over the "od$ of the
acc!sed2

CA JUSTICE OSCAR HERRERA) H8ce-t in a--lication for "ail, it is not necessar$ for
the #o!rt of Cirst Instance to 6rst ac9!ire j!risdiction over the -erson of the acc!sed
to dismiss the case or grant the relief2 4he o!tright dismissal of the case even
"efore the #o!rt ac9!ires j!risdiction over the -erson of the acc!sed is a!thori3ed
!nder 5ection ( <a>, !le 11= !le of #o!rt, #riminal Broced!re2
SANTIAGO vs VASQUEZ
4he vol!ntar$ a--earance of the acc!sed, where"$ the co!rt ac9!ires j!risdiction
over his -erson, is accom-lished either "$ his -leading to the merits <s!ch as 6ling
a motion to 9!ash or other -leadings re9!iring the e8ercise of the #o!rt;s
j!risdiction over, a--earing for arraignment, entering trial> or "$ 6ling "ail2
5antiago shows discretion "!t c!stod$ of law and j!risdiction over the -erson2
#!stod$ of the law is re9!ired "efore the #o!rt can act !-on the a--lication for "ail,
"!t is not re9!ired for the adj!dication of other relief so!ght "$ the de-endant
where "$ mere a--lication, thereof, constit!tes a waiver of the defence of lac& of
j!risdiction over the -erson acc!sed2
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE that 6ling -leadings see&ing afrmative relief
constit!tes vol!ntar$ a--earance, and the conse9!ent s!"mission of one;s -erson
to the j!risdiction of the #o!rt2 4his is in the case of -leadings whose -ra$er is
-recisel$ for the avoidance of the j!risdiction of the #o!rt, lead to s-ecial
a--earance2 Cail!re to 6le them is 1AI+H /C DHCH.#H
12 #ivil cases, motion to dismiss on the gro!nd of lac& of j!risdiction over the
-erson of the defendant, whether or not other gro!nds for dismissal are
incl!ded2
=2 #riminal cases, motion to 9!ash a com-laint on the gro!nd of j!risdiction
over the -erson of the acc!sed
32 0otion to J!ash a warrant of arrest K ,egalit$ of #o!rt -rocess forcing the
s!"mission of the -erson of the acc!sed2
GENERAL RULE) /ne who see&s afrmative relief is deemed to have s!"mitted to
the ?!risdiction of the #o!rt2