Valdepenas vs. People

Ruth  Kristine  A.  San  Pedro   CrimPro  Digest  –  Atty.  Tranquil  Salvador  (Ateneo  Law  B2015)  

Valdepenas  vs.  People  (G.R.  No.  L-­‐20687,  April  30,  1966)     Doctrine:   Jurisdiction   over   the   person   of   an   accused   is   acquired   upon   either   his   apprehension,  with  or  without  warrant,  or  his  submission  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court.     Appeal   by   Valdepeñas   from   a   decision   of   CA,   affirming   that   of   the   CFI   Cagayan,   convicting   him   of   the   crime   of   abduction   with   consent,   and   sentencing   him   to   an   indeterminate  penalty  and  to  indemnify  Ester  Ulsano.     Ester   Ulsano,   17yrs   old,   assisted   by   her   mother   filed   forcible   abduction   with   rape   against   Valdepenas.   CFI   found   him   guilty   as   charged.   CA   modified   to   abduction   with   consent.     Valdepenas  filed  an  MR  &  MNT  on  the  finding  of  minority  at  time  of  occurrence  which   was   granted   but   on   retrial   the   prior   CA   ruling   was   affirmed.   2nd   MR   based   on   lack   of   jurisdiction  of  CFI  was  denied  so  he  filed  petition  for  certiorari.     Petitioner's   theory   is   that   no   complaint   for   abduction   with   consent   has   been   filed   and   the  lower  court  acquired  no  jurisdiction  over  his  person  or  over  the  crime  of  abduction   with  consent  and  had,  therefore,  no  authority  to  convict  him.     Issue:  WON  CA  erred  in  not  reversing  CFI  for  lack  of  jurisdiction  over  the  person  of  the   accused  and  the  subject  matter  of  the  action  for  the  offense  of  abduction  with  consent?   NO!     Jurisdiction   over   the   person   of   an   accused   is   acquired   upon   either   his   apprehension,   with   or   without   warrant,   or   his   submission   to   the   jurisdiction   of   the  court.   In   the   case   at   bar,   it   is   not   claimed   that   petitioner   had   not   been   apprehended   or  had  not  submitted  himself  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court.  Indeed,  although  brought   before   the   bar   of   justice   as   early   as   January   25,   1956,   first,   before   the   then   justice   of   the   peace  court  of  Piat,  then  before  the  CFI  of  Cagayan,  later  before  the  CA,  thereafter  back   to  CFI,  and  then,  again,  before  the  CA,  never,   within   the   period   of   six   (6)   years   had   he   questioned  the  judicial  authority  of  any  of  these  three  (3)  courts  over  his  person.   He  is  deemed  waived  whatever  objection  he  might  have  had  to  the  jurisdiction  over  his   person,  and,  hence,  to  have  submitted  himself  to  the  Court's  jurisdiction.  His  behaviour   and   every   single   one   of   the   steps   taken   by   him   before   said   courts   —   particularly   the   motions   therein   filed   by   him   —   implied,   not   merely   a   submission   to   the   jurisdiction   thereof,  but,  also,  that  he  urged  the  courts  to  exercise  the  authority  thereof  over  his   person.     Abduction   with   consent   -­‐   jurisdiction   over   a   given   crime,   not   vested   by   law   upon   a   particular  court,  may  not  be  conferred  thereto  by  the  parties  involve  in  the  offense.     In  the  case  at  bar,  the  offended  woman  and  her  mother  have  negated  such  preference  by   filing  the  complaint  and  going  through  the  trials  and  tribulations  concomitant  with  the   proceedings  in  this  case,  before  several  courts,  for  the  last  ten  (10)  years.  Petitioner  says   that   the   complaint   was   for   forcible   abduction,   not   abduction   with   consent;   but,   as   already  adverted  to,  the  latter  is  included  in  the  former.       This   allegation   implies   that   Ester   is   a   minor   living   under   patria   protestas,   and,   hence,   single,  thus  leading  to  the  presumption  that  she  is  a  virgin.  She  was  taken  by  force  from   their  dwelling  when  her  mother  was  away  and  brought  to  a  secluded  area  and  raped.     CA  and  CFI  affirmed.  Cost  against  Valdepenas.