Scribd
Upload
131 views1 page

Larranaga vs. CA

1) Members of the PNP tried to arrest the petitioner without a warrant while he was attending a culinary class. He resisted arrest. 2) The next day, the petitioner's lawyer appeared before the city prosecutor demanding a regular preliminary investigation, but the prosecutor denied this and said only an inquest investigation was allowed. 3) The court ruled that the petitioner waived his right to a preliminary investigation by failing to appear for the inquest investigation that afternoon, and issued an arrest warrant. The petitioner questioned the validity of the arrest due to being denied a preliminary investigation.

Uploaded by

Carlota Nicolas Villaroman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
131 views1 page

Larranaga vs. CA

1) Members of the PNP tried to arrest the petitioner without a warrant while he was attending a culinary class. He resisted arrest. 2) The next day, the petitioner's lawyer appeared before the city prosecutor demanding a regular preliminary investigation, but the prosecutor denied this and said only an inquest investigation was allowed. 3) The court ruled that the petitioner waived his right to a preliminary investigation by failing to appear for the inquest investigation that afternoon, and issued an arrest warrant. The petitioner questioned the validity of the arrest due to being denied a preliminary investigation.

Uploaded by

Carlota Nicolas Villaroman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Larranaga vs.

CA
[G.R. No. 130644, March 13, 1998]

FACTS:
Members of the PNP Criminal Investigation Group (CIG) tried to arrest petitioner without
a warrant while attending a culinary class. Petitioner resisted the arrest. Subsequently,
petitioner went to the CIG headquarters in Camp Crame where he was met by his
counsel. He was allowed to go home. His counsel made a written undertaking that he
and petitioner will appear before the Prosecutor for preliminary investigation. In the
morning of September 17, 1997, Petitioner's counsel appeared before the City
Prosecutor and specifically demanded for a regular preliminary investigation for his
client who was, however, denied on the ground that petitioner was entitled only to an
inquest investigation. Charged with Kidnapping and Serious Illegal detention, petitioner
refused to enter a plea claiming that he was not accorded a regular preliminary
investigation. The trial court ruled that petitioner waived his right thereto when he failed
to appear in the afternoon of September 17, 1997 for an inquest investigation, on which
date the Executive Judge issued a warrant for his arrest. Petitioner questions the
validity of his arrest because he was denied the right to a preliminary investigation.
Petitioner also filed an urgent motion to transfer the venue of the preliminary
investigation from Cebu City to Manila and to replace the Office of the City Prosecutor
of Cebu with the Office of the State Prosecutor, Department of Justice, as the authority
to conduct the preliminary investigation because of the extensive coverage of the
proceedings by the Cebu media which allegedly influenced the people's perception of
petitioner's character and guilt.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the power of the judiciary to change venue and place of trial does
include the preliminary investigation.
HELD:
NO. As regards petitioner's motion to change the venue and the authority to conduct the
preliminary investigation, we are constrained to dismiss the same for lack of jurisdiction.
The holding of a preliminary investigation is a function of the Executive Department and
not of the Judiciary. Petitioner should therefore address their plea to the Department of
Justice that has control and supervision over the conduct of preliminary investigations.
Nonetheless, even if the Court had jurisdiction over the issue, petitioner's motion should
still be denied because it failed to allege and prove that the City Prosecutor of Cebu has
been actually affected by the publicity.

You might also like