G.R. No. 130644 October 27, 1997
THE MINOR FRANCISCO JUAN LARRANAGA, represented in this suit by his mother MARGARITA G. LARRANAGA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

On September 15, 1997, PNP CIG authorities attempted to arrest Francisco Juan Larranaga at the Center for Culinary Arts in Quezon City. His lawyer, Atty. Raymundo Armovit, remonstrated against the warrantless arrest, and the police desisted on the assurance that Larranaga would be brought to Cebu City on September 17, 1997, for preliminary investigation. On September 17, Atty. Armovit attended the preliminary investigation at the Office of the City State Prosecutor of Cebu. He moved for a regular preliminary investigation, requested copies of supporting affidavits and documents, and asked for a non-extendible period of twenty days to file a defense affidavit. The city prosecutor denied the motion, treating Larranaga as a detention prisoner entitled only to an inquest investigation, and ordered Larranaga’s personal presentation. A verbal motion for reconsideration was denied. On the same day, the prosecutors filed an information for kidnapping and serious illegal detention with the RTC of Cebu, recommending no bail. Larranaga, through counsel, filed a petition with the Court of Appeals on September 19, 1997, which was later supplemented to implead the RTC and to report his arrest on September 22, 1997, pursuant to a warrant issued by Executive Judge Priscila Agana. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitions on September 25, 1997. The Supreme Court, upon petition, issued a temporary restraining order on October 16, 1997. The Solicitor General, in his comment, supported Larranaga’s right to a regular preliminary investigation and recommended his release pending such investigation.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Francisco Juan Larranaga is entitled to a regular preliminary investigation instead of an inquest investigation for the charge of kidnapping and serious illegal detention.

RULING

Yes, the petitioner is entitled to a regular preliminary investigation. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 7 of Rule 112, which allows filing of an information without a preliminary investigation after a lawful warrantless arrest, is inapplicable because Larranaga was not lawfully arrested. The attempted arrest on September 15, 1997, was not consummated, and the subsequent arrest on September 22 was by virtue of a warrant. The police had no legal authority to effect a warrantless arrest for a crime committed two months prior, as such an arrest does not fall under the conditions of Section 5, Rule 113 (lawful warrantless arrest). Citing Go vs. Court of Appeals, the Court emphasized that the right to a preliminary investigation is a substantive right, especially in capital offenses. The Court found the denial of Larranaga’s request for a regular preliminary investigation and time to submit defense affidavits, which would have included alibi evidence from about forty individuals, to be unfair. Consequently, the Court set aside the inquest investigation, ordered the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cebu to conduct a regular preliminary investigation pursuant to Section 3, Rule 112, annulled the detention order, ordered Larranaga’s immediate release pending the investigation, and directed the RTC to cease proceedings pending the result of the preliminary investigation.