Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

MIGUEL P. PADERANGA vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF


THE PHILIPPINES
Posted on April 2, 2013 by winnieclaire
G.R. No. 11540 August 28, 1995

Standard

Facts: Petitioner was belatedly charged in an amended information as a co-conspirator in the


crime of multiple murder in the Regional Trial Court for the killing of members of the Bucag
family sometime in 1984 in Gingoog City of which petitioner was the mayor at the time.
The trial of the base was all set to start with the issuance of an arrest warrant for petitioners
apprehension but, before it could be served on him, petitioner through counsel, a motion for
admission to bail with the trial court which set the same for hearing.
As petitioner was then confined at the Cagayan Capitol College General Hospital, his counsel
manifested that they were submitting custody over the person of their client to the local chapter
president of the integrated Bar of the Philippines and that, for purposes of said hearing of his
bail application, he considered being in the custody of the law.
The prosecution was neither supporting nor opposing the application for bail and that they were
submitting the same to the sound discretion of the trail judge
Upon further inquiries from the trial court, Prosecutor Abejo announced that he was waiving any
further presentation of evidence. On that note and in a resolution, the trial court admitted
petitioner to bail in the amount of P200,000.00
Issue: Whether or not the grant of bail was tainted with grave abuse of discretion
Held: None.
As a paramount requisite, only those persons who have either been arrested, detained, or other
wise deprived of their freedom will ever have occasion to seek the protective mantle extended by
the right to bail.
A person is considered to be in the custody of the law (a) when he is arrested either by
virtue of a warrant of arrest issued or by warrantless arrest or (b) when he has voluntarily
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court by surrendering to the proper
authorities.
In the case of herein petitioner, it may be conceded that he had indeed filed his motion for
admission to bail before he was actually and physically placed under arrest. He may, however, at
that point and in the factual ambience therefore, be considered as being constructively and
legally under custody.
Through his lawyers, he expressly submitted to physical and legal control over his person.
Thus in the likewise peculiar circumstance which attended the filing of his bail application with
the trail court, for purposes of the hearing thereof he should be deemed to have voluntarily
submitted his person to the custody of the law and, necessarily, to the jurisdiction of the trial
court which thereafter granted bail as prayed for. In fact, an arrest is made either by actual
restraint of the arrestee or merely by his submission to the custody of the person making the
arrest. 19 The latter mode may be exemplified by the so-called house arrest or, in case of

military offenders, by being confined to quarters or restricted to the military camp area
The general rule is that prior to conviction by the regional trial court of a criminal offense, an
accused is entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right, the present exceptions thereto
being the instances where the accused is charged with a capital offense or an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment and the evidence of guilt is strong. Under
said general rule, upon proper application for admission to bail, the court having custody of the
accused should, as a matter of course, grant the same after a hearing conducted to specifically
determine the conditions of the bail in accordance with Section 6 (now, Section 2) of Rule 114.
On the other hand, as the grant of bail becomes a matter of judicial discretion on the part of the
court under the exceptions to the rule, a hearing, mandatory in nature and which should be
summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court is required with the participation of both the
defense and a duly notified representative of the prosecution, this time to ascertain whether or
not the evidence of guilt is strong for the provisional liberty of the applicant. Of course, the
burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that the evidence meets the required quantum.

Esteban vs. Alhambra


G.R. No. 135012
Ponente: Sandoval-GutierrezFACTS:1.
The case came to the SC as a petition for certiorari filed by Anita Esteban, sister in law of theaccused, to
reverse the two petitions for the annulment of cash bail of Gerardo Estebanamounting to P20,000
each.2.
Anita, originally posted the bail for Gerardo, however, he committed another crime while out onbail; she
got "fed up", and moved for the cancellation of the posted money to the court andsurrendered the
accused to the City Jail Warden. However this was denied, so was her motionfor reconsideration.3.
Anita now pleas that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting tolack of
jurisdiction, and that the issue is one of "first impression". She cites that under Sec 19,now Rule 114 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the bail may be cancelled uponsurrender of the
accused.ISSUE: WON Respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction when it refused to cancel the bail upon petition of AnitaHELD: No1.
Anita misapplies the provision; the cash bail cannot be cancelled because Gerardo was notsurrendered for
the four criminal cases he was originally charged with, he was acquiredbecause of the subsequent
case filed against him
2.
The court also cites section 14 which states:
Section 14. Deposit of cash as bail.
The accused or any person acting in his behalf may deposit in cash with the nearest collector of internal
revenue or provincial, cityor municipal treasurer the amount of bail fixed by the court, or

recommended by the prosecutor who investigated or filed the case. Upon submission of a proper
certificateof deposit and a written undertaking showing compliance with the requirements of Section 2 of
this Rule, the accused shall be discharged from custody. The moneydeposited shall be considered as bail
and applied to the payment of fine and costs,while the excess, if any, shall be returned to the accused or to
whoever made thedeposit
. (Underscoring supplied)
A cash bond is treated as the money of the accused (even if it was supplied by another person in his
behalf). The money of the accused shall than applied as payment for anyfine or cost imposed by the court.
It is treated in the nature of a lien. In the cited caseof Esler vs. Ledesma, between the accused and the
third party (the one who posted

MIRANDA vs TULIAO Case Digest


By maechmedina
MIRANDA vs TULIAO

FACTS:
March 08, 1996, 2 burnt cadavers were discovered I Purok Nibulan, Ramon, Isabela. September
1999, SP02 Mardeal was arrested. April 27, 2001, he executed a sworn confession and identified
petitioners Jose Miranda, SP03 Ocon, SP03 Dalmacio , a certain Boyet dela Cruz and Amado Doe, as
the persons responsible for the death of Vicente Buazon and Elizar Tualiao. Judge 6, 2001, 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 the State
Prosecutor Leo T. Reyes to the Department of Justice.

DOCTRINES:
Adjudication of a motion to quash a warrant of arrest neither jurisdiction over the person of the
accused, nor custody of law over the body of the accused.

CA Justice Oscar Herrerra:


Except in application for bail, it is not necessary for the Court of First Instance to first acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the accused to dismiss the case or grant the relief. The outright

dismissal of the case even before the Court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused is
authorized under Section 6 (a), Rule 112 Rule of Court, Criminal Procedure.

SANTIAGO vs VASQUEZ
The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the court acquires jurisdiction over his person, is
accomplished either by his pleading to the merits (such as filing a motion to quash or other pleadings
requiring the exercise of the Courts jurisdiction over, appearing for arraignment, entering trial) or
by filing bail.
Santiago shows discretion but custody of law and jurisdiction over the person. Custody of the law is
required before the Court can act upon the application for bail, but is not required for the
adjudication of other relief sought by the dependant where by mere application, thereof, constitutes
a waiver of the defence of lack of jurisdiction over the person accused.

EXCEPTION TO THE RULE that filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary
appearance, and the consequent submission of ones person to the jurisdiction of the Court. This is in
the case of pleadings whose prayer is precisely for the avoidance of the jurisdiction of the Court, lead
to special appearance. Failure to file them is WAIVER OF DEFENCE
1.

Civil cases, motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant, whether or not other grounds for dismissal are included.

2. Criminal cases, motion to quash a complaint on the ground of jurisdiction over the person of
the accused
3. Motion to Quash a warrant of arrest Legality of Court process forcing the submission of the
person of the accused.

GENERAL RULE: One who seeks affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the Jurisdiction
of the Court.