Facts: On March 8, 1996 in Purok Nibulan, Ramon, Isabela two burnt cadavers were discovered which

were later identified as bodies of Vicente Bauzon and Elizer Tuliao, son of the private respondent Virgilio
Tuliao. Two informations were filed against SPO1 Leano, SPO1 Marzan, SPO1 Agustin, SPO2 Micu, SPO2
Maderal and SPO4 Ramirez in the RTC of Santiago City. The venue was later transferred to RTC Manila
and convicted all accused except for SPO2 Maderal who was yet to be arraigned for being at large. The
case was appealed to the Supreme Court for automatic review and ruled to acquit the accused on the
ground of reasonbale doubt. SPO2 was arrested and he executed a sworn confession and identified
petitioners for being responsible in the crime committed.

Boyet Dela Cruz and Amado Doe were charged a criminal complaint by the Respondent based on sworn
confession of SPO2 Maderal. On June 05, 2001, Acting Presiding Judge Wilfredo Tumaliuan issued
warrant of arrest for the petioners against petioners and SPO2 Maderal. On 29 June 2001, petitioners
filed an urgent motion to complete preliminary investigation, to reinvestigate, and to recall and/or
quash the warrants of arrest. The said motion was denied by the judge on the ground that the court did
not acquire jurisdiction over the persons.

On June 17, 2001, the new Presiding Judge Anastacio D. Anghad took over the case and reversed the
decision of the acting judge. He ordered to cancel the warrant arrest against the petitioners because the
former submitted petition for review to the Department of Justice.

On October 25, 2001, the respondent filed petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition with a
request Temporary Restraining Order, seeking to instruct Judge Anghad from the further proceedings,
and nullify the former’s order.

On November 12, 2001, the TRO was granted against Judge Anghad from further proceeding. While, the
former ordered to dismiss the two informations of murder against petitioner.

The respondent filed a motion to cite Public Respondent in Contempt. The Motion was granted by the
Court of Appeals and ordered the reinstatement of the Criminal Cases in the RTC of Santiago City.
Warrant of Arrest issued against Petitioners and SPO2 Maderal. Later they petition a motion for
reconsideration but the same was denied.
1. Whether or not an accused cannot seek any judicial relief if he does not submit his person to the
jurisdiction of the court;
2. Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion when warrants of arrest were quashed on the
ground of prematurity constituted by the subsequent filing of petition for review with the secretary
of justice;
3. Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion when the case was dismissed based on the
decision of the same case but with different accused;
4. Whether or not the orders set aside by a nullified proceeding is deemed reinstated;
5. Whether or not the reinstatement of the case constituted double jeopardy

Decision:

1. The accused can seek judicial relief even if he does not submit his person to the jurisdiction of the
court because by applying any judicial relief falling already in the custody of the law.
2. There was abuse of grave abuse of discretion. The petion for review is not a ground in the quashal
of arrest warrant.
3. There was a grave abuse of discretion. The court decides based on the participation in crime even
if there were different accused. It must prove that they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
 4. The orders were nullified and deemed reinstated. The arrest warrant issued were deemed unquash
because the proceeding was nullified and subject for reinstatement.
5. There was no Double Jeopardy, because the petitioners have not been arraigned and he claimed
that the case was dismissed.

Th