Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Willkommen bei Scribd!

  • Larranaga Vs CA

    Hochgeladen von

    Karla Espinosa
    838 Ansichten2 Seiten
    1. The petitioner Larranaga was charged with kidnapping and illegal detention without a filed information or arrest warrant. He argued he was entitled to a preliminary investigation. 2. The issues were whether the petitioner was entitled to a preliminary investigation, and whether a writ of habeas corpus should be granted. 3. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to a preliminary investigation, as he had consistently demanded one and refused to enter a plea without one. However, the court also held that a writ of habeas corpus was not applicable, as the subsequent legal arrest warrant cured the initial illegal arrest, so there was no current illegal confinement.

    Originalbeschreibung:

    digest

    Originaltitel

    Larranaga vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Verfügbare Formate

    DOC, PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

    Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

    Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

    Dieses Dokument melden
    1. The petitioner Larranaga was charged with kidnapping and illegal detention without a filed information or arrest warrant. He argued he was entitled to a preliminary investigation. 2. The issues were whether the petitioner was entitled to a preliminary investigation, and whether a writ of habeas corpus should be granted. 3. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to a preliminary investigation, as he had consistently demanded one and refused to enter a plea without one. However, the court also held that a writ of habeas corpus was not applicable, as the subsequent legal arrest warrant cured the initial illegal arrest, so there was no current illegal confinement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als DOC, PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    838 Ansichten2 Seiten

    Larranaga Vs CA

    Hochgeladen von

    Karla Espinosa
    1. The petitioner Larranaga was charged with kidnapping and illegal detention without a filed information or arrest warrant. He argued he was entitled to a preliminary investigation. 2. The issues were whether the petitioner was entitled to a preliminary investigation, and whether a writ of habeas corpus should be granted. 3. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to a preliminary investigation, as he had consistently demanded one and refused to enter a plea without one. However, the court also held that a writ of habeas corpus was not applicable, as the subsequent legal arrest warrant cured the initial illegal arrest, so there was no current illegal confinement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als DOC, PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    von 2

    Larranaga vs CA

    Facts:
    Petitioner Larranaga was charged with two counts of kidnapping and serious
    illegaldetention before the RTC of Cebu City. He was arrested and was detained
    withoutthe filing of the necessary Information and warrant of arrest. The petitioner
    allegedthat he must be released and be subject to a preliminary investigation.
    However, pending the resolution of the Court for the petition for certiorari,
    prohibitionand mandamus with writs of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory
    injunction filedby the petitioner, RTC judge issued a warrant of arrest directed to the
    petitioner.

    Issue

    :1.Whether petitioner is entitled to a regular preliminary investigation


    2.Whether writ of habeas corpus should be granted in favor of petitioner.

    Held:
    1.Yes. Our ruling is not altered by the fact that petitioner has been arraigned
    onOctober 14, 1997. The rule is that the right to preliminary investigation iswaived
    when the accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering aplea at
    arraignment. Petitioner, in this case, has been actively andconsistently demanding a
    regular preliminary investigation even before hewas charged in court. Also,
    petitioner refused to enter a plea during thearraignment because there was a
    pending case in this Court regarding hisright to avail of a regular preliminary
    investigation. Clearly, the acts of petitioner and his counsel are inconsistent with a
    waiver. Preliminaryinvestigation is part of procedural due process. It cannot be
    waived unlessthe waiver appears to be clear and informed.
    2.No. The filing of charges and the issuance of the warrant of arrest against aperson
    invalidly detained will cure the defect of that detention or at least deny him the
    right to be released because of such defect.The originalwarrantless arrest of the
    petitioner was doubtless illegal. Nevertheless, theRegional Trial Court lawfully
    acquired jurisdiction over the person of thepetitioner by virtue of the warrant of
    arrest it issued on August 26, 1993 against him and the other accused in
    connection with the rape-slay cases. Itwas belated, to be sure, but it was
    nonetheless legal. Hence, the issuance of writ of habeas corpus may not apply in
    the case as there is no illegal confinement to speak of.

    Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen