Balboa accomplished either by pleading to the merits (filing

motion to dismiss, appearing for arraignment, or

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

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