CASE TITLE: EDUARDO M.

AUTHOR:
COJUANGCO, JR., petitioner vs. No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon a probable cause
SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION) to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
respondents. [G.R. No. Date]: G.R. No. particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
134307. December 21, 1998
TOPIC: Arrest seized. The clause unequivocally means that the judge must make his own
PONENTE: QUISUMBING, J.: determination
n— independent of that of the prosecutor — of whether there is probable cause
to issue a warrant of arrest, based on the complainant's and his witnesses'
accounts, if any. Supporting evidence other than the report and
recommendation of the investigators and the special prosecutor should be
examined by the court
FACTS :
 January 12, 1990, a complaint was filed by the Office of the Solicitor General before the Presidential Commission on
Good Government (PCGG), petitioner, former Administrator of the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA), and the former
members of the PCA Governing Board, petitioner among them, for violation of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act for having conspired and confederated together and taking undue advantage of their public
positions and/or using their powers; authority, influence, connections or relationship with the former President Ferdinand
E. Marcos and former First Lady, Imelda Romualdez-Marcos without authority, granted a donation in the amount of Two
Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) to the Philippine Coconut Producers Federation (COCOFED), a private entity, using PCA
special fund, thereby giving COCOFED unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence to the grave and prejudice of the Filipino people and to the Republic
of the Philippines.
 On February 17, 1995, an order for the arrest of petitioner was issued by Sandiganbayan.
 On February 22, 1995, petitioner posted bail. On the same day he likewise filed, through counsel, a Manifestation stating
that he was posting bail without prejudice to the Opposition To Issuance of Warrant of Arrest with Motion For Leave To
File a Motion For Reconsideration of the Ombudsman's Resolution which he filed.11.
 In a Resolution dated February 20, 1995, the respondent Sandiganbayan barred petitioner from leaving the country except
upon approval of the court

ISSUE(S):
1. WON the warrant of arrest issued by respondent Sandiganbayan is null and void, or should now be lifted if initially
valid? YES, warrant of arrest NULL and VOID.

2. WON the Sandiganbayan still acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner? YES, he posted bail which in
turn, waived all his rights to object the warrant
RATIO:
 Sandiganbayan failed to abide by the mandate of personally determining the existence if probable cause before
issuing a warrant of arrest.
 Hence, the warrant of arrest issued by Sandiganbayan is palpably INVALID.
 Sandiganbayan had two pieces of documents to consider when it resolved to issue the warrant of arrest against the
accused:
o the Resolution dated June 2, 1992 of the Panel of Investigators of the Office of the Ombudsman
recommending the filing of the Information and
o the Memorandum dated June 16, 1995 of the Office of the Special Prosecutor denying the existence of a
prejudicial question which will warrant the suspension of the criminal case. The Sandiganbayan had
nothing more to support its resolution.
 The 2 cited document above were the product of somebody else’s determination, insufficient to support a finding of
probable cause by the Sandiganbayan.
 In Ho vs. People ,the Court the respondent "palpably committed grave abuse of discretion in ipso facto issuing the
challenged warrant of arrest on the sole basis of the prosecutor's findings and recommendation, and without
determining on its own the issue of probable cause based on evidence other than such bare findings and
recommendation.

2.
 Although the warrant issued was void, the petitioner waived all his rights to object the warrant by posting bail, appearing
and giving of bond. Even though he questioned the validity of the warrant, his claim has been negated when he himself
invoked the jurisdiction of respondent court through filing of motions that sought affirmative relief.
 With regards to jurisdiction, the rule is well-settled that the giving or posting of bail by the accused is tantamount to
submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court.
 By posting bail, herein petitioner cannot claim exemption effect of being subject to the jurisdiction of respondent court.
While petitioner has exerted efforts to continue disputing the validity of the issuance of the warrant of arrest despite his
posting bail, his claim has been negated when he himself invoked the jurisdiction of respondent court through the filing
of various motions that sought other affirmative reliefs.
 In La Naval Drug vs. CA, Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be waived either expressly or
impliedly. When a defendant voluntarily appears, he is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
If he so wishes not to waive this defense, he must do so seasonably by motion for the purpose of objecting to the
jurisdiction of the court, otherwise, he shall be deemed to have submitted himself to that jurisdiction. Moreover,"[w]here
the appearance is by motion for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, it must be for the
sole and separate purpose of objecting to said jurisdiction. If the appearance is for any other purpose, the defendant is
deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Such an appearance gives the court jurisdiction over the
person
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
PANGANIBAN, J.,concurring and dissenting opinion;
As a consequence of the nullity of the warrant of arrest, the Sandiganbayan did not acquire jurisdiction over the petitioner. The
posting of a bail bond by the petitioner despite the nullity or irregularity of the issuance of the warrant for his arrest should not
be equated with "voluntary appearance" as to cloak the respondent court with jurisdiction over his person. Truly, his
"appearance" in court was not "voluntary." It should be noted that immediately upon learning of the filling of the Information
and the issuance of thewarrant, petitioner filed an "Opposition to [the] Issuance of [a] Warrant of Arrest with Motion for
Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of [the] Ombudsman['s]Resolutions." Said Opposition was based on the inadequacy
of the respondent court's basis for determining probable cause.
It was essentially an express and continuing objection to the court's jurisdiction over his person
.When petitioner posted his bail bond, he expressly manifested at the same time that such was "without prejudice” to his
Opposition.