Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 142 views

    Minor Francisco Juan Larranaga vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    John Ambas
    The petitioner was charged with kidnapping and illegal detention but was arrested and detained without a filed information or arrest warrant. The petitioner argued he was entitled to a preliminary investigation. The RTC judge then issued an arrest warrant against the petitioner while his petition was still pending. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that he was entitled to a regular preliminary investigation, not just an inquest investigation, since the requirements for an inquest investigation under Section 7 of Rule 112 were not met as the petitioner was not lawfully arrested.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Minor Francisco Juan Larranaga vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    John Ambas
    142 views1 page
    The petitioner was charged with kidnapping and illegal detention but was arrested and detained without a filed information or arrest warrant. The petitioner argued he was entitled to a preliminary investigation. The RTC judge then issued an arrest warrant against the petitioner while his petition was still pending. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that he was entitled to a regular preliminary investigation, not just an inquest investigation, since the requirements for an inquest investigation under Section 7 of Rule 112 were not met as the petitioner was not lawfully arrested.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    minor-francisco-juan-larranaga-vs.-CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner was charged with kidnapping and illegal detention but was arrested and detained without a filed information or arrest warrant. The petitioner argued he was entitled to a preliminary investigation. The RTC judge then issued an arrest warrant against the petitioner while his petition was still pending. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that he was entitled to a regular preliminary investigation, not just an inquest investigation, since the requirements for an inquest investigation under Section 7 of Rule 112 were not met as the petitioner was not lawfully arrested.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    142 views1 page

    Minor Francisco Juan Larranaga vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    John Ambas
    The petitioner was charged with kidnapping and illegal detention but was arrested and detained without a filed information or arrest warrant. The petitioner argued he was entitled to a preliminary investigation. The RTC judge then issued an arrest warrant against the petitioner while his petition was still pending. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that he was entitled to a regular preliminary investigation, not just an inquest investigation, since the requirements for an inquest investigation under Section 7 of Rule 112 were not met as the petitioner was not lawfully arrested.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Siccion, Liza B.

    MINOR FRANCISCO JUAN LARRANAGA


    VS.
    COURT OF APPEAL
    GR NO. 130644
    OCTOBER 27, 1997

    FACTS:

    Petitioner Larranaga was charged with two counts of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
    before the RTC of Cebu City. He was arrested and was detained without the filing of the
    necessary information and warrant of arrest. The petitioner alleged that he must be released
    and be subject to a preliminary investigation. However, pending the resolution of the court for
    the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with writs of preliminary and mandatory
    injunction filed by the petitioner. The RTC judge issued a warrant by arrest against the
    petitioner.

    ISSUE:
    WON the petitioner be given due course and be accorded his right to preliminary investigation.

    RULING:

    YES.

    Petitioner is entitled not to a mere inquest investigation but to a regular preliminary


    investigation. Section 7 of Rule 112 cannot be invoked to justify petitioner’s inquest
    investigation. Said section clearly provides that “When a person is lawfully arrested without a
    warrant for an offense cognizable by the RTC, the complaint or information may be filed by the
    offended party, peace officer or fiscal without a preliminary investigation having been filed
    conducted on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person.

    The records do not show that petitioner was lawfully arrested “ for one the petitioner was not
    arrested on September 15, 1997, as his counsel persuaded the arresting officer that he would
    instead be presented in the preliminary to be conducted in Cebu City on September 17, 1997.
    For another the arresting officer had no legal authority to make a warrantless arrest of the
    petitioner for a crime committed some two (2) months before.

    You might also like