This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-03-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Our pronouncement in Santiago shows a distinction between custody of the law and jurisdiction over the person. Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon the application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere application therefor constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused.[8] Custody of the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender,[9] while jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance.[10] One can be under the custody of the law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, such as when a person arrested by virtue of a warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant. On the other hand, one can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, and yet not be in the custody of the law, such as when an accused escapes custody after his trial has commenced.[11] Being in the custody of the law signifies restraint on the person, who is thereby deprived of his own will and liberty, binding him to become obedient to the will of the law.[12] Custody of the law is literally custody over the body of the accused. It includes, but is not limited to, detention. | |||||