In a murder case, three accused filed a joint motion for reinvestigation and recall of warrants. The RTC denied the motion on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction over the persons. Is the RTC's ruling correct?

In a murder case, three accused filed a joint motion for reinvestigation and recall of warrants. The RTC denied the motion on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction over the persons. Is the RTC's ruling correct?

• A. Yes, the RTC correctly lacked jurisdiction over the persons because there was no appearance.
• B. No, the court acquired jurisdiction over the persons when they filed the motion and invoked the court's authority, which constitutes voluntary appearance.
• C. Yes, jurisdiction over the persons is established only after arrest.
• D. No, the motion for reinvestigation has no bearing on personal jurisdiction and should be resolved after arrest.

Answer: (B)

Personal jurisdiction over an accused in a criminal case can attach when the accused voluntarily submits to the court’s authority, not only upon arrest. Filing a pleading or motion that directly invokes the court’s power—such as a joint motion for reinvestigation and recall of warrants—constitutes a voluntary appearance, even if the accused is not physically present. Once the accused has invoked the court’s authority in this way, the RTC gains jurisdiction over the person for purposes of ruling on the motion and addressing the issues it raises, including reinvestigation and recall of warrants. Therefore, denying the motion on the ground that the court lacks personal jurisdiction because there was no appearance is incorrect. The act of filing the motion is a form of appearance that brings the accused under the court’s jurisdiction. The view that there is no appearance, or that jurisdiction only attaches after arrest, does not fit the situation, and the motion itself is a proper step that affects the proceedings.

Personal jurisdiction over an accused in a criminal case can attach when the accused voluntarily submits to the court’s authority, not only upon arrest. Filing a pleading or motion that directly invokes the court’s power—such as a joint motion for reinvestigation and recall of warrants—constitutes a voluntary appearance, even if the accused is not physically present. Once the accused has invoked the court’s authority in this way, the RTC gains jurisdiction over the person for purposes of ruling on the motion and addressing the issues it raises, including reinvestigation and recall of warrants. Therefore, denying the motion on the ground that the court lacks personal jurisdiction because there was no appearance is incorrect. The act of filing the motion is a form of appearance that brings the accused under the court’s jurisdiction. The view that there is no appearance, or that jurisdiction only attaches after arrest, does not fit the situation, and the motion itself is a proper step that affects the proceedings.