Larranaga Vs CA

LARRANAGA VS.
CA
G.R. No. 130644 March 13, 1998
FACTS:
Petitioner Francisco Juan Larranaga is charged with two counts of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
ending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 7, Cebu City. He is presently detained at the Bagong
Buhay Rehabilitation Center.
Petitioner, represented by his mother, Margarita G. Larranaga, filed with this Court a petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus with writs of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction. Petitioner alleged
that he was denied the right to preliminary investigation and sought to annul the informations as well as the
warrant of arrest issued in consequence thereof. In the alternative, petitioner prayed that a preliminary
investigation be conducted and that he be released from detention pending the investigation.
On October 27, 1997, the Court issued a resolution holding that petitioner was deprived of his right
to preliminary investigation when the City Prosecutor of Cebu insisted that he was only entitled to
an inquest investigation and to order the immediate release of petitioner pending his preliminary
investigation.
The counsel for the prosecution filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
ISSUE:
1. WON petitioner is entitled to a regular preliminary investigation;
2. WON petitioner should be released from detention pending the investigation.
RULING:
1. YES, petitioner is entitled to a regular preliminary investigation.
a. The prosecutors argue that petitioner is entitled only to an inquest investigation under Section 7 of
Rule 112 since he was lawfully arrested without a warrant under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised
Rules of Court.
The petitioner was not lawfully arrested. He was, in fact, not arrested.
The facts show that on September 15, 1997, some members of the Philippine National Police
Criminal Investigation Group (PNP CIG) went to the Center for Culinary Arts in Quezon City to arrest
petitioner, albeit without warrant. Petitioner resisted the arrest and immediately phoned his sister
and brother-in-law. Petitioner's sister sought the aid of Atty. Raymundo A. Armovit. Atty. Armovit,
over the phone, dissuaded the police officers from carrying out the warrantless arrest and proposed
to meet with them at the CIG headquarters in Camp Crame, Quezon City. The police officers,
yielded and returned to the CIG headquarters. Petitioner, together with his sister and brother-in-law
also went to the CIG headquarters aboard their own vehicle. Atty. Armovit questioned the legality of
the warrantless arrest before CIG Legal Officer Ruben Zacarias. After consulting with his superiors,
Legal Officer Zacarias ordered to stop the arrest and allowed petitioner to go home. Atty. Armovit
made an undertaking in writing that he and petitioner would appear before the Cebu City Prosecutor
on September 17, 1997 for preliminary investigation.
b. As to the argument that the petitioner is actually committing the crime at the time of the arrest.
The Court disagreed. The facts show that the alleged kidnapping was committed on July 16, 1997.
One of the victims, Marijoy Chiong, was found dead in Sitio Tanawan, Barangay Guadalupe, Carcar,
Cebu on July 18, 1997, while the other victim, Jacqueline Chiong, remains missing to date. There is
no showing that at the time of the arrest on September 15, 1997, Jacqueline Chiong was being
detained by petitioner who was then residing in Quezon City. Hence, the petitioner may not be
considered as continually committing the crime of kidnapping with serious illegal detention at the
time of the arrest.
c. The Prosecution argued that the petitioner has already waived his right to preliminary investigation.
A waiver, whether express or implied, must be made in clear and unequivocal manner. Mere failure
of petitioner and his counsel to appear before the City Prosecutor in the afternoon of September 17,
1997 cannot be construed as a waiver of his right to preliminary investigation, considering that
petitioner has been vigorously invoking his right to a regular preliminary investigation since the start
of the proceedings before the City Prosecutor.
The Court’s ruling is not altered by the fact that petitioner has been arraigned on October 14, 1997.
The rule is that the right to preliminary investigation is waived when the accused fails to invoke it
before or at the time of entering a plea at arraignment
2. The petitioner should not be released from detention pending the investigation.
The records show that on September 17, 1997, two informations were filed against petitioner for
kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Executive Judge Priscila Agana issued a warrant of arrest
on September 19, 1997. Petitioner was arrested on September 22, 1997 by virtue of said warrant.
The Court held in Sanchez v. Demetriou that the filing of charges and the issuance of the warrant of
arrest against a person invalidly detained will cure the defect of that detention or at least deny him
the right to be released because of such defect. The reason for this, as the Court ruled in a different
case, “ xxx release of the petitioner for that reason will be a futile act as it will be followed by her
immediate re-arrest pursuant to the new and valid warrant, returning her to the same prison she will
just have left. This Court will not participate in such a meaningless charade.”
The Court held, therefore, that petitioner's detention at the Bagong Buhay Rehabilitation Center is
legal in view of the information and the warrant of arrest against him. The absence of a preliminary
investigation will not justify petitioner's release because such defect did not nullify the information
and the warrant of arrest against him.

Larranaga Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Larranaga Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Larranaga Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What was the petitioner charged with?

What was the court's ruling on whether the petitioner was entitled to a preliminary investigation?

LARRANAGA VS.

The counsel for the prosecution filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

1. WON petitioner is entitled to a regular preliminary investigation;

2. WON petitioner should be released from detention pending the investigation.

1. YES, petitioner is entitled to a regular preliminary investigation.

You might also like