LARRANAGA vs. CA 1997 Oct 27; G.R. No. 130644 PUNO, J. 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 Regional Trial Court, the complaint or information may be filed by the offended party, peace officer or fiscal without a preliminary investigation having been first 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 officers that he would instead be presented in the preliminary investigation to be conducted in Cebu City on September 17, 1997. For another, the arresting officers had no legal authority to make a warrantless arrest of the petitioner for a crime committed some two (2) months before. It then follows that the right of petitioner to a regular preliminary investigation pursuant to section 3 of Rule 112 cannot stand any diminution.

Larra Naga 1

Download PDF Report

Upload
chelle-ong
View
221
Download
0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

LARRANAGA vs. CA1997 Oct 27; G.R. No. 130644

PUNO, J.

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 theRegional Trial Court, the complaint or information may be filed by the offended party, peace officer or fiscal without a preliminary investigation having been first 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 officers that he would instead be presented in the preliminary investigation to be conducted in Cebu City on September 17, 1997. For another, the arresting officers had no legal authority to make a warrantless arrest of the petitioner for a crime committed some two (2) months before.

It then follows that the right of petitioner to a regular preliminary investigation pursuant to section 3 of Rule 112 cannot stand any diminution.