G.R. No. 134307 , December 21, 1998
EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. was charged before the Sandiganbayan. The court issued a warrant for his arrest based solely on two documents: the Ombudsman’s resolution recommending the filing of an information and a memorandum from the Office of the Special Prosecutor finding no prejudicial question. Cojuangco immediately filed an “Opposition to Issuance of Warrant of Arrest,” arguing the court had no sufficient basis for a personal judicial determination of probable cause. He subsequently posted bail, but with an express manifestation that it was “without prejudice” to his pending Opposition.
Despite his objection, the Sandiganbayan denied his motion to recall the warrant. Later, the Office of the Ombudsman itself, after reinvestigation, filed a manifestation stating there was no probable cause to charge him. Cojuangco then moved for the dismissal of the case, contending that with this reversal, there was no legal basis for the warrant or the court’s jurisdiction over his person.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner despite the nullity of the warrant of arrest issued without a proper judicial determination of probable cause.

RULING

The Supreme Court, through Justice Quisumbing, declared the warrant of arrest null and void. The ruling in Ho v. People mandates that a judge must personally determine probable cause for issuing a warrant, independent of the prosecutor’s findings. The Sandiganbayan’s reliance solely on the Ombudsman’s and Special Prosecutor’s recommendations, without examining supporting evidence like affidavits or witness statements, violated this constitutional requirement.
However, the majority held that the Sandiganbayan still acquired jurisdiction over Cojuangco. The Court ruled that by posting bail and seeking permission to travel abroad—actions which the majority viewed as voluntary submission to the court’s authority—he effectively waived any defect in the arrest procedure. Consequently, the nullity of the warrant did not deprive the court of jurisdiction, and the case was not dismissed but remained with the Sandiganbayan for further proceedings.
In a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Justice Panganiban agreed that the warrant was void but dissented on the jurisdictional point. He argued that Cojuangco’s consistent objections, his “without prejudice” bail posting, and his “conditional arraignment” solely to facilitate travel were not a voluntary appearance or waiver. He contended that without a valid warrant or voluntary submission, the Sandiganbayan never acquired jurisdiction, and all its subsequent orders were void. He would have remanded the case for a proper determination of probable cause.