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.