JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF ACCUSED - is acquired either by his/her arrest

or voluntary appearance in court.

The voluntary appearance of the accused is accomplished either by his

1. pleading to the merits (such as by filing a motion to quash or other pleadings

requiring the exercise of the court's jurisdiction)
2. appearing for arraignment, entering trial, or
3. by filing bail

On the matter of bail, since the same is intended to obtain the provisional liberty of the
accused, as a rule, the same cannot be posted before custody of the accused has been
acquired by the judicial authorities, either by his arrest or voluntary surrender.

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused refers to the authority of the court, not over the
subject matter of the criminal litigation, but over the person charged. This kind of
jurisdiction requires that "the person charged with the offense must have been brought in to
its forum for trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the
court" (Antiporda v. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551; Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 388 SCRA 72;
Cojuangco v. Sandiganbayan, 300 SCRA 367).

A special appearance before the court to challenge the jurisdiction of the court over the
person is not tantamount to estoppel or a waiver of the objection and is not a voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the court (Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 170122,
October 12,2009).

Likewise, the assertion that the court never acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
accused because the warrant of arrest issued is null and void because no probable cause
was found by the court issuing it, cannot be sustained because he posted a bail. The giving
or posting of a bail by the accused is tantamount to submission of his person to the
jurisdiction of the court. Even if it is conceded that the warrant issued was void, the
defendant waived all his rights to object by appearing and giving a bond (Cojuangco, Jr. v.
Sandiganbayan, 300 SCRA 367; Velasco v. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 677).

Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, Sec. 4 of P.D. 1606

Jurisdiction in Money Laundering Cases. — The Regional Trial Courts shall have jurisdiction
to try all cases on money laundering. Those committed by public officers and private
persons who are in conspiracy with such public officers shall be under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan (Sec. 5, RA. 9160, Anti-Money Laundering Act of2001).

There is, however, an exception to the rule that filing pleadings seeking affirmative
relief constitutes voluntary appearance, and the consequent submission of one’s person
to the jurisdiction of the court. This is in the case of pleadings whose prayer is precisely
for the avoidance of the jurisdiction of the court, which only leads to a special
appearance. These pleadings are: (1) in civil cases, motions to dismiss on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, whether or not other grounds for
dismissal are included, RULES OF COURT (Rule 15, Section 20); (2) in criminal cases,
motions to quash a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of
the accused; and (3) motions to quash a warrant of arrest. The first two are
consequences of the fact that failure to file them would constitute a waiver of the
defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person. The third is a consequence of the fact that
it is the very legality of the court process forcing the submission of the person of the
accused that is the very issue in a motion to quash a warrant of arrest.

Remedy:

Motion to Quash

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/mar2006/G.R.%20No.%20158763.htm

Miranda v Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006.

In actions in personam such as ejectment, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant through personal or substituted service of summons. However, because substituted service is
in derogation of the usual method of service and personal service of summons is preferred over
substituted service, parties do not have unbridled right to resort to substituted service of summons.

Tam-Wong v. Factor-Koyama, 616 Phil. 239, 250 (2009)

Sps. Jose v. Sps. Boyon, 460 Phil. 354, 363 (2003)