MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, vs. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, Ombudsman; GUALBERTO J. DE LA LLANA, Special Prosecutor; SANDIGANBAYAN and REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 99289-90
- Promulgated: 1993-01-27
- Ponente: Regalado, J.
Doctrine
A party may be deemed to have submitted to a court's jurisdiction by voluntarily filing a motion expressly placing oneself under that court's custody and seeking acceptance of bail.
Matters involving hold departure orders should be addressed first by the trial or lower courts which are best positioned to evaluate and impose conditions; relief should not be sought directly from the Supreme Court in the first instance.
Facts
Petitioner filed an "Urgent Ex-parte Motion for Acceptance of Cash Bail Bond" seeking acceptance of a P15,000 bail bond and that she be considered under the custody/jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, and prayed the arrest warrant be recalled.
Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and an ancillary motion asking the Supreme Court to restrain the Sandiganbayan from enforcing its hold departure order and for TRO/preliminary injunction.
The Court undertook to determine whether the Sandiganbayan acquired personal jurisdiction over petitioner and whether bail posting was valid.
The Court noted petitioner's tendency to seek relief directly from the Supreme Court rather than from lower courts, especially in matters involving hold departure orders.
Issues
Whether respondent court acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner and whether there was a valid posting of bail bond.
Whether filing a special civil action for certiorari in this Court divested the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction or prevented enforcement of its hold departure order.
Ruling
Petitioner is deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by filing the cited ex parte motion which expressly sought to place her under that court's jurisdiction and to have the bail bond accepted.
The Supreme Court denied petitioner's motion to restrain enforcement of the hold departure order and her request for TRO/preliminary injunction for lack of merit; petitioners must first exhaust remedies in the trial court.
Keywords
G.R. Nos. 99289-90, special civil action, Information dated May 9, 1991, Criminal Case No. 16698, Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, order of arrest, bail for the release of the accused, Urgent Ex-parte Motion for Acceptance of Cash Bail Bond, provisional liberty, recognizance, petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, P.D. No. 46, libel, temporary restraining order, arraignment, motion for reconsideration, hold departure order, Commission on Immigration and Deportation, sandiganbayan