JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF ACCUSED - is acquired either by his/her arrest or voluntary appearance in court.

The voluntary appearance ofthe accusedis accomplished either by his1. pleading to the merits (such as by filing a motion to quash or other pleadings requiring theexerciseof the court's jurisdiction)2. appearing for arraignment, entering trial, or3. by filing bailOn the matter of bail, since the same is intended to obtain the provisional liberty ofthe accused, as a rule, the same cannot be posted before custody ofthe accusedhas been acquired by the judicial authorities, either by his arrest or voluntary surrender.

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused refers to the authority of the court, not over the subject matter of the criminal litigation, but over the person charged. This kind of jurisdiction requires that "the person charged with the offense must have been brought in to its forum for trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the court" (Antiporda v. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551; Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 388 SCRA 72; Cojuangco v. Sandiganbayan, 300 SCRA 367).A special appearance before the court to challenge the jurisdiction of the court over the person is not tantamount to estoppel or a waiver of the objection and is not a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court (Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 170122, October 12,2009).The assertion that the court never acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused because the warrant of arrest issued is null and void because no probable cause was found by the court issuing it, cannot be sustained because he posted a bail. The giving or posting of a bail by the accused is tantamount to submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court. Even if it is conceded that the warrant issued was void, the defendant waived all his rights to object by appearing and giving a bond (Cojuangco, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 300 SCRA 367; Velasco v. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 677).Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, Sec. 4 of P.D. 1606Jurisdiction in Money Laundering Cases. The Regional Trial Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all cases on money laundering. Those committed by public officers and private persons who are in conspiracy with such public officers shall be under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (Sec. 5, RA. 9160, Anti-Money Laundering Act of2001).There is, however, an exception to the rule that filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary appearance, and the consequent submission of ones person to the jurisdiction of the court. This is in the case of pleadings whose prayer is precisely for the avoidance of the jurisdiction of the court, which only leads to a special appearance. These pleadings are: (1) in civil cases, motions to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, whether or not other grounds for dismissal are included;[18] (2) in criminal cases, motions to quash a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused; and (3) motions to quash a warrant of arrest. The first two are consequences of the fact that failure to file them would constitute a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person. The third is a consequence of the fact that it is the very legality of the court process forcing the submission of the person of the accused that is the very issue in a motion to quash a warrant of arrest.Remedy:Motion to Quashhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/mar2006/G.R.%20No.%20158763.htm

Miranda v Tuliao, G.R. No.158763, March 31, 2006.