Criminal Law Review Conspiracy - Article 8Full description
civil codeFull description
Hizon VS CA digest
okFull description
ashdgaj
Fgu Insurance vs. CA digest
kkFull description
FullFull description
Property Case Digest (recit ready)
obliconFull description
.
case digestFull description
case
Full description
digestFull description
consti
Atok vs Ca credit ransaction
Land Titles and DeedsFull description
Asia Brewery vs CAFull description
Republic vs CA
Full description
digest
Oblicon CaseFull description
Lim vs. CA Digest
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.