516 Phil. 717
AZCUNA, J.:
Sec. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. – (a) By the Regional Trial Court. – Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted the preliminary investigation or when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issuance must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint or information.
Also included in the records are the resolution issued by State Prosecutor Benny Nicdao finding probable cause to indict petitioner and his other co-accused for syndicated estafa,[8] and a copy of the Articles of Incorporation of State Resources Development Management Corporation naming petitioner as incorporator and director of said corporation.
- The report of the National Bureau of Investigation to Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuño as regards their investigation on the complaint filed by private complainant Manuel Dy Awiten against Mina Tan Hao @ Ma. Gracia Tan Hao and Victor Ngo y Tan for syndicated estafa. The report shows that Hao induced Dy to invest more than a hundred million pesos in State Resources Development Management Corporation, but when the latter's investments fell due, the checks issued by Hao in favor of Dy as payment for his investments were dishonored for being drawn against insufficient funds or that the account was closed.[2]
- Affidavit-Complaint of private complainant Manuel Dy Awiten.[3]
- Copies of the checks issued by private complainant in favor of State Resources Corporation.[4]
- Copies of the checks issued to private complainant representing the supposed return of his investments in State Resources.[5]
- Demand letter sent by private complainant to Ma. Gracia Tan Hao.[6]
- Supplemental Affidavit of private complainant to include the incorporators and members of the board of directors of State Resources Development Management Corporation as participants in the conspiracy to commit the crime of syndicated estafa. Among those included was petitioner Chester De Joya.[7]
- Counter-Affidavits of Chester De Joya and the other accused, Ma. Gracia Hao and Danny S. Hao.
x x x Requisites for the exercise of jurisdiction and how the court acquires such jurisdiction:Justice Regalado continues to explain:
- Jurisdiction over the plaintiff or petitioner: This is acquired by the filing of the complaint, petition or initiatory pleading before the court by the plaintiff or petitioner.
- Jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent: This is acquired by the voluntary appearance or submission by the defendant or respondent to the court or by coercive process issued by the court to him, generally by the service of summons.
- Jurisdiction over the subject matter: This is conferred by law and, unlike jurisdiction over the parties, cannot be conferred on the court by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties.
- Jurisdiction over the issues of the case: This is determined and conferred by the pleadings filed in the case by the parties, or by their agreement in a pre-trial order or stipulation, or, at times by their implied consent as by the failure of a party to object to evidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings, as provided in Sec. 5, Rule 10.
- Jurisdiction over the res (or the property or thing which is the subject of the litigation). This is acquired by the actual or constructive seizure by the court of the thing in question, thus placing it in custodia legis, as in attachment or garnishment; or by provision of law which recognizes in the court the power to deal with the property or subject matter within its territorial jurisdiction, as in land registration proceedings or suits involving civil status or real property in the Philippines of a non-resident defendant.
In two cases, the court acquires jurisdiction to try the case, even if it has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of a nonresident defendant, as long as it has jurisdiction over the res, as when the action involves the personal status of the plaintiff or property in the Philippines in which the defendant claims an interest. In such cases, the service of summons by publication and notice to the defendant is merely to comply with due process requirements. Under Sec. 133 of the Corporation Code, while a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines without a license cannot sue or intervene in any action here, it may be sued or proceeded against before our courts or administrative tribunals.[11]Again, 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.