A was charged before the Sandiganbayan with a crime of plunder, a non-bailable offense, where the court had already issued a warrant for his arrest. Without A being arrested, his lawyer filed a Motion to Quash Arrest Warrant and to Fix Bail, arguing that the allegations in the information did not charge the crime of plunder but a crime of malversation, a bailable offense. The court denied the motion on the ground that it had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused and that the accused should be under the custody of the court since the crime charged was nonbailable The accused’s lawyer counter-argued that the court can rule on the motion even if the accused was at-large because it had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. According to said lawyer, there was no need for the accused to be under the custody of the court because what was filed was a Motion to Quash Arrest and to Fix Bail, not a Petition for Bail.
(A) If you are the Sandiganbayan, how will you rule on the motion? (3%)
(B) If the Sandiganbayan denies the motion, what judicial remedy should the accused undertake? (2%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
(A) I will deny the motion to quash the warrant, but grant the motion to fix bail if malversation is charged; and (B) if denied, the remedy is a Rule 65 certiorari petition before the Supreme Court. Under jurisprudence, custody of the law is not required to
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Is custody of the law required for a court to rule on a motion to quash an arrest warrant?
Custody of the law is not required for a court to rule on a motion to quash an arrest warrant or fix bail.
What is the proper judicial action when an Information alleges facts constituting a bailable offense instead of plunder?
Reclassifying the offense to a bailable one justifies fixing bail rather than quashing the arrest warrant.
When is physical custody of the law strictly required in bail proceedings under criminal procedure?
Custody of the law is required when the accused actually posts bail and seeks release from custody.
What is the proper remedy of an accused when the Sandiganbayan gravely abuses its discretion in denying a motion to fix bail?
Choices available with full access.
Under Miranda v. Tuliao, how does a court acquire jurisdiction over the person of an accused who is at large?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Custody of Law
Under the doctrine in Miranda v. Tuliao, custody of the law is not required for a trial court to rule on a motion to quash an arrest warrant or a motion to fix bail. The court acquires jurisdiction over the person of an accused when he files a motion seeking affirmative relief, even if he remains at large. Physical custody of the accused or voluntary surrender is required only for the actual grant and posting of bail, not for hearing or resolving motions attacking the validity of an arrest warrant or seeking to fix bail based on the offense charged.
2. Quash Arrest Warrant
A motion to quash an arrest warrant cannot be grounded solely on the argument that the allegations in the Information describe a bailable offense rather than a non-bailable crime. If the facts alleged in the Information constitute malversation instead of plunder, the proper judicial action is to fix the appropriate amount of bail for the bailable offense rather than quashing the warrant of arrest. An arrest warrant remains valid as long as there is probable cause that a criminal offense was committed by the accused, regardless of the designation of the offense in the Information.
3. Rule 65 Certiorari
An order denying a motion to quash an arrest warrant or a motion to fix bail is interlocutory in nature and not immediately appealable via ordinary appeal. When such an interlocutory order is issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the proper judicial remedy of the accused is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals. Certiorari lies to correct jurisdictional errors where no appeal or speedy remedy exists in the ordinary course of law.