Notes for Remedial Law Introduction Substantive Law creates, defines, regulates rights concerning life, liberty or property

y or the powers of agencies and instrumentalities for the administration of public affairs - vests rights - prospective - legislative (cannot be enacted by SC) Remedial (Adjective) Law provides means or methods whereby causes of actions may be effectuated, wrongs redresses and relief obtained - vests no right - retroactive (governs acts/transactions that took place) - SC is expressly empowered to promulgate Judicial Power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (Sec 1, Art VIII, CONST) The Power of Judicial Review is the SCs power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, PD, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation unconstitutional. Jurisdiction (Lat. juris & dico I speak of the law) is the power and authority of a court to try, hear, and decide a case and to carry its judgments into effect. The statement that jurisdiction is conferred by substantive law is NOT accurate because only jurisdiction over subject the matter is conferred by law. Jurisdiction over the parties, issues, and res are governed by procedural law.

a. Estoppel by laches (Tijam v Sibonghanoy, GR No. L-21450, 4/15/1968) b. Where defendant actively participated in all stages of the proceeding before the trial court and invoked its authority by asking for an affirmative relief (Soliven v Fastforms, Inc, GR No. 139031, 10/18/2004) Jurisdiction is governed by the law at the time the ACTION is COMMENCED

3. Jurisdiction over the res (thing or property under

litigation) - acquired either by the seizure of the property OR as a result of the institution of legal proceedings in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective

4. Jurisdiction over the issues (as raised in the pleadings or

by their agreement in a pre-trial order or those tried by the implied consent of the parties) Jurisdiction pertains to the authority to hear and decide cases. Exercise of Jurisdiction pertains to any act of the court pursuant to such authority including the decisions and its consequences. Error of jurisdiction exercise of jurisdiction in the absence of jurisdiction or acting in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion - the court judgment is void or at least voidable - correctible by certiorari Error of judgment one committed in the exercise of jurisdiction, including errors of procedure or mistakes in court findings - does not void the courts decision - correctible by appeal CLASSIFICATION of Jurisdiction 1. As to CASES Tried: a. General exercised over all kinds of cases except those withheld from the plenary powers of the court b. Limited extends only to particular/specified cases 2. As to NATURE of Cause: a. ORIGINAL exercised by courts in the first instance b. APPELLATE review by a superior court of decisions previously decided by a lower court 3. As to Nature and EXTENT of Exercise a. EXCLUSIVE confined to a particular court to the exclusion of other courts b. CONCURRENT (coordinate or confluent) pertaining to different courts over the SAME SUBJECT MATTER at the SAME TIME and PLACE. When two or more courts have concurrent jurisdiction over a case, the court which first validly acquired jurisdiction takes it to the exclusion of others (exclusionary principle) 4. As to SITUS a. TERRITORIAL exercised within the limits of the place where the court is located

REQUISITES for VALID EXERCISE of JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction over the persons (of the parties)

Over the person of the plaintiff acquired the moment he files his complaint, petition, initiatory pleading Over the person of the defendant acquired either by his voluntary appearance in court and his submission to its authority, OR by service of summons or other coercive processes upon him

2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter (of the

controversy) conferred by law; NOT by voluntary act or agreement of parties determined by the allegations in the complaint

General Rule: Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter CANNOT BE WAIVED and may be raised AT ANY STAGE of the proceeding, the court being authorized to dismiss the case motu proprio Exception:

b. EXTRA-TERRITORIAL exercised beyond the confines of the territory where the court is located COURTS OF LAW VS COURTS OF EQUITY Courts of law decides a case according to law Courts of Equity adjudicates a controversy according to common precepts of what is right and just without inquiring into the terms of the statutes In the Philippines, every court, both original and appellate, exercises both the legal and equitable jurisdictions (US v Tambunting, 31 Phil 321) SUPERIOR COURTS VS INFERIOR COURTS Superior courts refer to those courts which have the power of review or supervision over another lower court Inferior courts are those which, in relation to another are lower in rank and subject to review and supervision of the latter Courts of record those whose proceedings are enrolled and which are bound to keep a written record of all trials and proceedings handled by them. RA 6031 mandates all MTCs to be courts of record. Policy of judicial hierarchy a higher court will not entertain direct resort to it UNLESS the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts. While it is true that the SC, CA and the RTC have concurrent original jurisdiction to issue writs of CPM, such concurrence does not accord litigants unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which the application for the writ may be directed. The application should be filed with the court of lower level unless the importance of the issue involved deserves the action of the court of higher level. Doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference General Rule: No court has the authority to interfere by injunction with the judgment of another court of coordinate jurisdiction or the pass upon or scrutinize and much less declare as unjust a judgment of another court (Industrial enterprises, Inc v CA, GR No. 88550, April 18, 1990) Exception: The doctrine does not apply where a third party claimant is involved (Santos v Bayhon, GR No. 88643, July 23, 1991) Doctrine of adherence to jurisdiction (aka Continuity of jurisdiction) - Once jurisdiction has been acquired, the court retains it until the final termination of the case. General Rule: Law enacted during the pendency of a case which transfers jurisdiction to another court does not affect cases prior to its enactment. Exception: 1. New law EXPRESSLY PROVIDES for a RETROACTIVE application 2. Change of jurisdiction is CURATIVE in character

Exclusionary Principle The court first acquiring jurisdiction excludes all others Doctrine of Primary jurisdiction courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge and experience of said tribunal in determining technical and intricate matters of fact (Villaflor v CA, GR No. 95694, Oct 8, 1997) Doctrine of Ancillary Jurisdiction - courts have the inherent or implied powers to determine issues incidental to the exercise of its primary jurisdiction Under its ancillary jurisdiction, a court may determine all questions relative to the matters brought before it, regulate the manner in which a trial shall be conducted, determine the hours at which the witnesses and lawyers may be heard, direct the disposition of money deposited in court in the course of the proceedings, appoint a receiver and grant an injunction, attachment or garnishment. JURISDICTION VS VENUE Jurisdiction - Power and authority to hear and decide cases - Conferred by law - Substantive Venue - the place or situs where the action is to be initiated - provided for by procedural law - procedural in nature venue n. 1) the proper or most convenient location for trial of a case. Normally, the venue in a criminal case is the judicial district or county where the crime was committed. For civil cases, venue is usually the district or county which is the residence of a principal defendant, where a contract was executed or is to be performed, or where an accident took place. However, the parties may agree to a different venue for convenience (such as where most witnesses are located). Sometimes a lawsuit is filed in a district or county which is not the proper venue, and if the defendant immediately objects (asks for a change of venue), the court will order transfer of the case to the proper venue. Example: a promissory note states that any suit for collection must be filed in Washington County, Indiana, and the case is filed in Lake County, Indiana. In high profile criminal cases the original venue may be considered not the best venue due to possible prejudice stemming from pre-trial publicity in the area or public sentiment about the case which might impact upon potential jurors. For these various reasons either party may move (ask) for a change of venue, which is up to the discretion of a judge in the court where the case or prosecution was originally filed. Venue is not to be confused with "jurisdiction," which establishes the right to bring a lawsuit (often anywhere within a state) whether or not it is the most convenient or appropriate location.

JURISDICTION OF COURTS in CRIMINAL EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL

CASES

MTC 1. Offenses punishable with imprisonment NOT exceeding 6 years irrespective of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties including the civil liability arising therefrom or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature value, or amount thereof 2. Offenses involving DAMAGE TO PROPERTY thru CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE 3. Offenses where the only imposable penalty is FINE of NOT exceeding P 4,000.00 (Adm Cir. 0994) ----------------------------------4. Those covered by the Rules of Summary Procedure: a. Violations of traffic laws, rules & regulations b. Violations of the rental law c. Violations of city or municipal ordinances d. Violations of BP 22 (effective April 15, 2003) e. All other criminal cases where the penalty is imprisonment not exceeding 6 mos, and/or P 1,000.00 fine irrespective of other penalties or civil liabilities arising therefrom and in offenses involving damage to property thru criminal negligence where the imposable fine is not exceeding P 10,000.00

1 E

2 c e

3 F 9

4 -

F C

APPELLATE

* p l a W A t

JURISDICTION OF COURTS in CRIMINAL CASES EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL CONCURRENT SC Petitions for CPM against CA and SB

With the CA: petitions for CPM against RTCs -------------------------------------------------------------With the CA and RTCs: petitions for CPM against

APPELLATE

By Petition for review on certiorari: From the CA; From the SB; From the RTC where only an error or question

NOTE: Inn People v Mateo, GR No. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, the SC held that while the Fundamental Law requires a mandatory review by the SC of cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, nowehere, however, has it proscribed an intermediate review. If only to ensure utmost circumspection before the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed, the Court now deems it wise and compelling to provide in these cases a review by the CA before the case is elevated to the SC. A prior determination by the CA on, particularly, the factual issues, would minimize the possibility of an error of judgment. If the CA should affirm the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, it could then render judgment imposing the corresponsding penalty as the circumstances so warrant, refrain from entering judgment and elevate the entire records of the case to the SC for its final disposition.

NOTES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Criminal Procedure - is the method prescribed by law for the apprehension and prosecution of persons accused of any criminal offense, and for their punishment, in case of conviction - In its generic sense, it describes the network of laws and rules which governs the procedural administration of justice, that is, laws and court rules governing arrest, search and seizure, bail etc. (Black Law Dictionary) Criminal Law Substantive Law Declares what acts are punished Defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their punishment Criminal Procedure Remedial Law Provides how such act is to be punished Provides for the method by which a person accused of a crime is arrested, tried and/or punished

required by the rules The reason for this is to make sure that the State maked no mistake in taking life or liberty except that of the guilty. (Romualdez v SB, July 20, 2002) Criminal Jurisdiction - the authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose the punishment for it. (People v Mariano, GR No. L-40527, June 30, 1976) REQUISITES for Valid Exercise of Jurisdiction 1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter the offense, by virtue of the imposable penalty, or its nature, is one which the court is, by law, authorized to take cognizance of Jurisdiction over the territory the offense must have been committed or that any of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused person charged with the offense must be brought to the court for trial either by arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court

2.

3.

Sources: 1. Rules 110-127, 1997 Revised Rules of Court 2. 1987 Constitution (esp. Art III on Bill of Rights) 3. Supreme Court Decisions interpreting the Rules 4. Supreme Court issuances 5. Legislative Acts 6. Presidential Issuances 7. Revised Penal Code 8. Civil Code 9. Others: a. Spanish Law of Criminal Procedure b. Prior Rules of Court c. Amendatory Acts by the Philippine Commission d. Quasi acts SYSTEMS OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1. Inquisitorial the detection and prosecution of crimes are left to the initiative of officials and agents of the law. The judge is not limited to the evidence brought before him but could proceed with his own inquiry which is not confrontative. 2. Accusatorial the accusation is exercised by every citizen or by a member of the group to which the injured party belong. The procedure is confrontative and the trial is publicly held and ends with the magistrate rendering the verdict. 3. Mixed combination of the above which is observed in the Philippines. However, it has been held that: As a general rule, a court proceeding in our judicial set-up is accusatorial or adversary in nature. It contemplates two contending parties before the court which hears them impartially and rendrs judgment only after trial. (Queto v Catolico, 31 SCRA 52, 1970) Due process and Criminal Procedure Criminal due process requires that the accused must be proceeded against under orderly process of law, in all criminal cases, the judge should follow the step-by-step procedure

Jurisdiction over the subject matter - the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong - is conferred by law; cannot be fixed by the will of the parties nor can it be acquired by the or diminished by act of the parties The Philippine Courts have no common law jursidction or power, but only those conferred by the Constitution and statutes and those necessarily implied to make the express powers effective. (Velunta v Chief, Phil. Constabulary, GR No. 71855, Jan. 20, 2988)

determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. HOWEVER, the rule is different where jurisdiction is dependent on the nature of the position of the accused at the time of the commission of the offense (See Subido v. SB, 78 SCAD 104, Jan 20, 1997)

The averments in the complaint or information characterize the crime to be prosecuted and the court before which it must be tried. x x x The jurisdiction of the courts in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information and NOT by the findings the court may make after the trial. (Buaya v Polo, GR No. 75097, Jan. 26, 1989) PRINCIPLES OF JURISDICTION 1. General Rule: Jurisdiction of a court is determined by (1) the geographical limits over the territory over which it presides, and (2) the action (civil or criminal) it is empowered to hear and decide Question of jurisdiction is always of importance. If the prosecution fails to prove that fact, the court may always permit it to present additional evidence

2.

3. 4.

The filing of complaint or information in Court initiates a criminal action. The court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is fatal and objection based upon this ground may be raised or considered motu proprio by the court at any stage of the proceeding. An exception is when there is estoppel by laches. HOWEVER, there is NO estoppel against the State:

Where the place of the commission of the offense was not specifically charged, the place may be shown by the evidence. (US v Celis, 9 Phil 716) ACTION BY COURT WHERE IT HAS NO JURISDICTION It has been held that where the court has nor jurisdiction at the time of the filing of the complaint, instead of ordering the transfer, the court should dismiss the case. (Rizal Commercial Banking v Isnani, March 6, 1995) However, in Republic v Asuncion (231 SCRA 211, 1994) and Cunanan v Arceo (242 SCRA 88, 1995) the Court sanctioned the transfer of the case from the RTC for lack of jurisdiction to the SB, while in Lacson v The Executive Secretary, the Court en banc ordered the transfer of the cases from the Sandiganbayan to the RTC of Q.C which has exclusive jurisdiction of the cases. In Cuyco v SB, the court ordered the SB to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, but informed the Ombudsman that it may re-file the cases with the court of proper jurisdiction. In his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Davide Jr asked to REFER the case to the RTC of dismissing the cases. It is believed that under its supervisory authority, the SC and even the CA may properly refer the case to the court of proper jurisdiction. Courts of the first and second level are without authority to order the transfer. If the said courts believe that for a case it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, its jurisdiction is limited to simply dismissing the case. DETERMINATION of CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 1. By the allegations in the complaint or information, NOT by the results of proof or by the trial courts aooreciation of the evidence 2. By the nature of the offense and/or penalty attached thereto and NOT by what may be meted out after trial 3. By the law in force at the time of the institution of the action, NOT at the time of the commission of the offense. Once vested, it cannot be withdrawn by: a. a subsequent valid amendment of the information (People vs. Chupeco, GR No. 19568, Mar 31, 1964) b. subsequent statutory amendment of the rules of jurisdiction UNLESS the amendatory law expressly provides otherwise, in which case, the court is then ousted of its jurisdiction and the case must be transferred to a court having jurisdiction by virtue of the new law. (See Binay v SB, GR No. 12001, Oct 1, 1999). JURISDICTION OVER COMPLEX CRIMES Jurisdiction is lodged with the trial court having jurisdiction to impose the maximum and most serious penalty imposable of an offense forming part of the complex crime. It must be prosecuted integrally and must not be divided into component offenses which may be made subject of multiple information brought in different courts. (Cuyos v Garcia, GR No. L-46934, Apr 15, 1988) JURISDICTION OVE CONTINUING CRIMES

The government is never estopped by mistake or error on the part of its agents. (People v Castaeda) Ordinarily, certiorari is unavailing where the appeal period has lapsed. Among the EXCEPTIONS are: a. when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates b. when the broader interest of justice so requires c. when the writs issued are null and void; or d. when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority 5. A conviction or acquittal before a court having no jurisdiction is absolutely voids Jurisdiction over offense Where the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the person of the accused, it is not necessary, in order to maintain that jusrisdiction, to decide the case correctly. (Ngo Yao Tit v. Sherrif of Manila, 27 Phil 278) It is not a jurisdictional defect that a criminal action is brought in the name of the City of Manila instead of the U.S. The fact constitutes a mere defect or error curable at any stage of the action, it does not deprive the court of the power to pronounce a valid judgment and impose a valid sentence, and it cannot be made the basis of a writ of habeas corpus. (same) The court having jurisdiction of the offense has also jurisdiction to determine the disposition of the instrument of the commission of the crime. Where a court is given jurisdiction over a specific class of crimes, that jurisdiction will continue whether that class be enlarged or diminished or whether the penalty for a violation be increased or diminished. (US v Bruhez, 28 Phil 305) Territorial Jurisdiction - the territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or try the offense allegedly committed by the accused - In criminal proceedings, the rule is that one cannot be held to answer for any crime committed by him except in the jurisdiction where it was committed. If the evidence adduced during the trial show that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action fro want of jurisdiction. (Uy v CA, GR No. 119000, July 28, 1997)

Continuing offenses are consummated in one place, yet by the nature of the offense, the violation of the law is deemed continuing (e.g. libel, estafe). The courts of the territories where the essential ingredients of the crime took place have concurrent jurisdiction BUT the which first acquire it excludes others. NOTES ON JURISDICTION OF COURTS (refer to the table for details) General: If a specific or class of offense or offenders are expressly provided by statute as under the exclusive jurisdiction of a court, such court shall take cognizance of the case to the exclusion of others. The additional penalty for habitual delinquency is NOT considered in determining which court shall have jurisdiction over a criminal case because such delinquency is not a crime. MTCs: Where the offense is within its exclusive competence by reason of the penalty prescribed therefore, an inferior court shall have jurisdiction to try and decide the case irrespective of the kind and nature of the civil liability arising from the said offense. Even if the offense is punishable with imprisonment of 6 yrs or below, if it is expressly provided by law to be under the original jurisdiction of the RTC or SB, the MTC should not take cognizance. In other words, where the jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the offense and not by the penalty, jurisdiction should remain in the RTC or SB. Example: 1. Libel - RTC 2. Election offenses RTC; the SB has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused even if their positions are SG 27 or higher 3. Dangerous Drugs Cases The CFI, Circuit Criminal Court (CCC), and Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court (JDRC)have concurrent original jurisdiction, PROVIDED that in the cities or provinces where there are JDRCs, said courts shall take exclusive cognizance of cases where the offenders are under sixteen years of age. 4. Cases under exclusive original jurisdiction of the SB 5. Cases under exclusive original jurisdiction of Family Courts under RA 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997) Special Jurisdiction of the MTCs In the absence of ALL the RTC Judges in a province or city, a judge of inferior court may hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or application for bail in criminal cases in the province or city where the absent RTC judges sit. Jurisdiction of the SandiganBayan (SB) a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:

"(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade '27' and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including: "(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers and other provincial department heads; "(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors engineers and other city department heads; "(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher; "(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank; "(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent or higher; "(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor; "(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or -controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations; "(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade'27'and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989; "(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; "(4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and "(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade'27'and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. b. Other offenses orfelonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of this section in relation to their office. c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986

Katarungang Pambarangay (PD 1508)

General Rule: Parties have no power to enter into amicable settlement as regards crimes. EXCEPTION: In case of offenses punishable by imprisonment of LESS THAN 30 days, or a fine NOT more than P 200.00 General Rule: If parties are residents of the SAME Barangay, then settle through the Lupon of such Barangay EXCEPTIONS: 1. IF residents of different Barangays but city/municipality is the same, then in barangay where any of respondents actually resides, at the complainants election 2. All disputes which involve real property (or any interest therein) shall be brought in the barangay where the real property (or any part thereof) is situated. The Lupon has NO AUTHORITY Over disputes: 1. Involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities/municipalities EXCEPT where such barangays adjoins each other. 2. Involving real property located in different cities/municipalities. Jurisdiction over the Person When Acquired: 1. Upon his arrest*; OR 2. Upon his voluntary appearance *Applies only to criminal proceedings instituted before the regular courts, NOT to proceedings under military courts. Waiver Any objection to the procedure leading to the arrest must be opportunely raised before the accused enters his plea. Under Rule 114 Sec 26 of the Rules of Court, application for or admission to bail shall NOT bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of the charge against him, PROVIDED that he raises them before entering his plea. In application for bail, HOWEVER, the accused must be in custody of the law to be entitled to bail. The mere filing of an application for bail is not sufficient (Refer, however, to the case of Paderanga vs CA, below). This principle, however, only applies for purposes of bail. In other cases, the following rules apply: GENERAL RULE - Filing of pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary appearance, and the subsequent submission of ones person to the jurisdiction of the courts. EXCEPTION - 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: In Civil cases:

1. MOTIONS TO DISMISS on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, whether or not the grounds for dismissal are included In Criminal Cases: 2. MOTIONS TO QUASH COMPLAINT on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the person of the accused; and 3. MOTIONS TO QUASH WARRANT OF ARREST The first two are consequences of the fact that failure to file them would constitute waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over their person. In the third, the legality of the process forcing the submission of the person of the accused is the very issue. The accused who desires to question the jurisdiction of a court over his person must appear in court ONLY for that specific purpose. If he raises other questions, he waived the jurisdiction over his person. Except in applications for bail, it is NOT necessary for the court to first acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused to (1) dismiss the case, or (2) grant other relief. The case of Paderanga vs CA The accused, confined in a hospital, applied for bail before placed under arrest. At the hearing for the motion for bail, his counsel manifested that he was submitting the person of the accused to the custody of the local chapter president of the IBP and that for purposes of the hearing for bail, accused be deemed under the custody of the law. The SC held that accused may at that point and in the ambiance thereof, be considered be considered as being constructively and legally under custody. Bail was granted.