G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006
JOSE C. MIRANDA, ALBERTO P. DALMACIO, and ROMEO B. OCON, Petitioners, vs. VIRGILIO M. TULIAO, Respondent.

FACTS

Two burnt cadavers were discovered in 1996, identified as Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao. Informations for murder were initially filed against several police officers, who were convicted by the RTC but later acquitted by the Supreme Court on reasonable doubt. In 2001, one of the original accused, SPO2 Rodel Maderal, was arrested and executed a sworn confession identifying petitioners Jose Miranda, Alberto Dalmacio, and Romeo Ocon as the actual perpetrators. Based on this confession, respondent Virgilio Tuliao filed a new murder complaint. Acting Presiding Judge Wilfredo Tumaliuan issued warrants for the petitioners’ arrest.
Petitioners filed an urgent motion to quash the warrants. Judge Tumaliuan denied the motion, noting the court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons as they had not been arrested. Subsequently, a new judge, Anastacio Anghad, took over the case. Judge Anghad reversed the prior orders, cancelled the warrants, and eventually dismissed the murder Informations against the petitioners. This dismissal was issued after the Supreme Court had already issued a temporary restraining order enjoining Judge Anghad from further proceeding with the case.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the orders of Judge Anghad, reinstated the criminal cases, and ordered the issuance of arrest warrants against the petitioners.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The core legal principle is that a judge does not acquire jurisdiction over the person of an accused who has not been arrested or has not voluntarily surrendered. Since the petitioners had not submitted to the court’s authority, Judge Tumaliuan correctly ruled he could not properly act on their motion to quash the warrants. His denial was a recognition of this lack of jurisdiction, not a ruling on the merits of the motion. Therefore, Judge Anghad gravely abused his discretion in reversing a legally correct order. His subsequent act of dismissing the Informations was void, as it was issued in defiance of the Supreme Court’s active temporary restraining order. The dismissal was based on an erroneous premise—that Judge Tumaliuan had ruled on the merits of the motion—and constituted an invalid interference with a co-equal court’s prior lawful action. Consequently, the reinstatement of the cases and the order for arrest warrants were proper to allow the trial court to proceed in accordance with law.