Criminal Law Review Conspiracy - Article 8Full description
NEGO digest-forgeryFull description
LTD caseFull description
land titles and deeds
Commercial Law ReviewFull description
Credit digestFull description
Full description
StatCon Digest
StatCon Digest
aFull description
Pangan vs. CA
Full description
Gelano vs CA (Digest)Full description
Borjal vs CA!Full description
Obligations and Contracts, case digest
Case Digest
Full description
PDIC vs CA Special Proceedings Case Digest Interpleader Rule 62
jj
Seraspi vs Ca
Agency
Consti 2 case digest. Eminent domainFull description
Art. 1229 of the Civil CodeFull description
Search
Home
Saved
0
274 views
Upload
Sign In
RELATED TITLES
0
Larranaga vs CA Uploaded by Karla Espinosa
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines News
Documents
Sheet Music
digest
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Bankers Association of
1
Download
Join
of 2
People vs Bermas
Umil v. Ramos Digest
Search document
Larranaga vs CA
Facts:
Petitioner Larranaga was charged with two counts of kidnapping and serious illegaldetention before the RTC of Cebu City. e was arrested and was detained withoutthe !ling of the necessary "nfor#ation and warrant of arrest. The petition allegedthat he #ust be released and be sub$ect to a preli#inary investigation. owever% pending the resolution of the Court for the petition for certiorari% prohibitionand #anda#us with writs of preli#inary prohibitory and #andatory in$unction !ledby the petitioner% RTC $udge issued a warrant of arrest directed to petitioner.
"ssue
:&.'hether petitioner is entitled to a regular preli#inary preli#inary investigation investigation (.'hether writ of habeas corpus should be granted in favor of petitioner.
eld:
&.)es. *ur ruling is not altered by the fact that petitioner has been arraigned on*ctober &+% &,,-. The rule is that the right to preli#inary preli#inary investigation iswaiv when the accused fails to invoke it before or at the ti#e of entering aplea at arraign#ent. arraign#ent. Petitioner% in this case% has been actively andconsistently de#andi regular preli#inary investigation even before hewas charged in court. Also% petitioner refused to enter a plea during thearraign#ent because there was a pending case in this Court regarding hisright to avail preli#inary Signof upatoregular vote on this title investigation. Clearly% the acts of petitioner and his counsel are inconsistent with Useful Not useful waiver. Preli#inaryinvestigation is part of procedural due process. "t cannot be waived unlessthe waiver appears to be clear and infor#ed.
Home
Saved
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
274 views
0
Upload
Sign In
RELATED TITLES
0
Larranaga vs CA Uploaded by Karla Espinosa
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines News
Documents
Sheet Music
digest
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Join
Bankers Association of
1
of 2
People vs Bermas
Umil v. Ramos Digest
Search document
You're Reading a Preview Unlock full access with a free trial.
