Digest Maker  The foregoing documents (NBI report, affidavit-complaint, copies of
Jurisdiction over the Accused | January 31, 2006 | J. Azcuna
Nature of Case: Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
Digest Maker: Vanayan Odsey
SUMMARY: Marquez brought the present petition questioning the validity
of the issuance of a warrant of arrest against him. The Court ruled that he is
not entitled to seek relief from the Court because he continuously refused
to surrender and submit to the court’s jurisdiction.
DOCTRINE: Jurisdiction over the defendant is attained by the voluntary
appearance or submission of the defendant, or by the coercive process
issued by the court to him (summons). One who refuses to submit to the
court’s jurisdiction is not entitled to seek relief from the very same courts.
FACTS:
 A complaint for syndicated estafa was brought alleging that
complainant Dy was induced by the respondents to invest more than
a hundred pesos in State Resources Development Management
Corporation, but when the investments fell due, the checks issued as
a supposed return on investments were dishonored for being drawn
against insufficient funds.
 Respondent Judge Marquez of RTC Manila issued a warrant of
arrest against petition De Joya after finding probable cause
 De Joya filed the present petition, asserting that Judge Marquez
erred in finding the existence of probable cause that justified the
issuance of a warrant of arrest against him
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
1. WON there was probable cause - YES.
 Probable cause is defined as “facts and circumstances which would
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an
offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.”
The standard used for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is less
stringent than that used for establishing guilt of the accused. As long
as the evidence presented shows prima facie case against the accused,
then there is sufficient ground to issue a warrant of arrest.
the checks, demand letter, etc) found in the records are sufficient to
support the warrant.
[RELEVANT ISSUE] WON petitioner is entitled to seek relief – NO.
 Requisites for the exercise of jurisdiction has been explained by J.
Regalado
o Jurisdiction over the plaintiff- Filing of the complaint,
petition, or initiatory pleading before the court
o Jurisdiction over the defendant- Voluntary appearance or
submission of the defendant, or by coercive process issued
by the court to him, generally by the service of summons
o Jurisdiction over the subject matter- Conferred by law
o Jurisdiction over the issue- Determined and conferred by the
pleadings filed, or by the agreement in the pre-trial, or by
the implied consent
o Jurisdiction over the res- Acquired by the actual or
constructive seizure in the court of the thing
 In the present case, the petitioner is not entitled to seek relief from
the Court nor from the trial courts as he continuously refused to
surrender and submit to the court’s jurisdiction.
 There is no exceptional reason in this case to allow petitioner to
obtain relief from the courts without submitting to its jurisdiction.
On the contrary, his continued refusal to submit to the court’s
jurisdiction should give this Court more reason to uphold the action
of the respondent judge. The purpose of a warrant of arrest is to
place the accused under the custody of the law to hold him for trial
of the charges against him. His evasive stance shows an intent to
circumvent and frustrate the object of this legal process. It should be
remembered that he who invokes the court’s jurisdiction must first
submit to its jurisdiction.
Ruling/Dispositive Portion: The petition is dismissed.