Chiong Sisters

7/24/2019 Chiong Sisters

1/7

G.R. No. 130644. March 13, 1998]

Minor Francisco Juan Larranaga v. CA an !".

The following are submitted before the Court for resolution:

1.an urgent motion to implement petitioners release filed by petitioner on November 3, 1997

!.a motion for re"onsideration of this Courts resolution of #"tober !7, 1997 filed on November

17, 1997 by the "ounsels for the prose"ution in Crim. Case No. C$%&'(3)3 and '(3)'

3.a "omplaint filed by *udge +artin . #"ampo, -residing *udge, egional Trial Court, $ran"h

7, Cebu City, against petitioners "ounsels, ttorneys aymundo . rmovit, amon .

Teleron and $ernardito /lorido, for allegedly deliberately withholding from this Court the

omnibus order, supplemental order and order of arraignment he issued on #"tober 17, 1997,

thus misleading the Court into issuing its resolution of #"tober !7, 1997 and

'.an urgent motion to "hange the venue and the offi"ers to "ondu"t the preliminary

investigation filed by petitioner on November 17, 1997.

The ante"edent fa"ts:

-etitioner /ran"is"o *uan 0arranaga is "harged with two "ounts of idnapping and serious

illegal detention do"eted as C$%&'(3)3 and C$%&'(3)' pending before the egional Trial Court

2TC, $ran"h 7, Cebu City. 4e is presently detained at the $agong $uhay ehabilitation Center.

#n #"tober 1, 1997, petitioner, represented by his mother, +argarita 5. 0arranaga, filed with

this Court a petition for "ertiorari, prohibition and mandamus with writs of preliminary prohibitory

and mandatory in6un"tion. -etitioner alleged that he was denied the right to preliminary

investigation and sought to annul the informations as well as the warrant of arrest issued in

"onseuen"e thereof. 8n the alternative, petitioner prayed that a preliminary investigation be

"ondu"ted and that he be released from detention pending the investigation. 1-etitioner filed a

supplemental petition for habeas "orpus or bail on #"tober ;, 1997. !

#n #"tober !), 1997, the


2/7

#n #"tober 3), 1997, petitioner filed with the TC of Cebu an urgent ex partemotion praying

for his immediate release pursuant to our #"tober !7 resolution.(

The following day, on #"tober 31, 1997, *udge +artin . #"ampo, -residing *udge of TC

$ran"h 7, Cebu City, issued an order deferring the resolution of petitioners motion.8t stated that it

would be premature to a"t on the motion sin"e the trial "ourt has not yet re"eived an offi"ial "opy of

our #"tober !7 resolution and that said resolution has not yet attained finality. /urthermore, *udge

#"ampo "alled the Courts attention to the fa"t that petitioner has been arraigned on #"tober 1',1997 and waived his right to preliminary investigation. ;

#n November 3, 1997, petitioner filed with this Court an urgent motion praying, among others,

that *udge #"ampo be dire"ted to order petitioners immediate release upon re"eipt of our #"tober

!7 resolution.7

*udge #"ampo filed with this Court a letter&"omplaint dated November 3, 1997 alleging that

petitioners "ounsels, ttorneys aymundo . rmovit, amon . Teleron and $ernardito /lorido,

deliberately withheld from this Court the omnibus order, supplemental order and order of

arraignment, all issued by him on #"tober 1', 1997 in "onne"tion with Crim. Case No. C$%&'(3)3

and '(3)'. *udge #"ampo alleged that by withholding said orders, petitioners "ounsels unwittingly

misled the Court in its #"tober !7 resolution.A

#n November 17, 1997, the "ounsels for the prose"ution in Crim. Case No. C$%&'(3)3 and

'(3)' filed a motion for re"onsideration of our #"tober !7 resolution. 9They raised the following

arguments:

1. -etitioner is "harged with a "ontinuing offense hen"e, his arrest and detention about two

months after the abdu"tion of the vi"tims was lawful

!. ?e"utive *udge -ris"ila


3/7

e resolve the first issue in the affirmative.

The prose"utors argue that petitioner is entitled only to an inuest investigation under


4/7

"onsidered a "ontinuing "rime where the deprivation of liberty is persistent and "ontinuing from

one pla"e to another. The fa"ts show that the alleged idnapping was "ommitted on *uly 1;,

1997. #ne of the vi"tims, +ari6oy Chiong, was found dead in


5/7

warrant of arrest against a person invalidly detained will "ure the defe"t of that detention or at least

deny him the right to be released be"ause of su"h defe"t. The Court ruled:

The original warrantless arrest of the petitioner was doubtless illegal. Nevertheless, the egional

Trial Court lawfully a"uired 6urisdi"tion over the person of the petitioner by virtue of the warrant of

arrest it issued on ugust !;, 1993 against him and the other a""used in "onne"tion with the rape&

slay "ases. 8t was belated, to be sure, but it was nonetheless legal.

>ven on the assumption that no warrant was issued at all, we find that the trial "ourt still lawfully

a"uired 6urisdi"tion over the person of the petitioner. The rule is that if the a""used ob6e"ts to the

6urisdi"tion of the "ourt over his person, he may move to uash the information, but only on that

ground. 8f, as in this "ase, the a""used raises other grounds in the motion to uash, he is deemed

to have waived that ob6e"tion and to have submitted his person to the 6urisdi"tion of the "ourt.

The Court notes that on ugust 13, 1993, after the petitioner was unlawfully arrested, *udge

0anBanas issued a warrant of arrest against ntonio 0.


6/7

s regards petitioners motion to "hange the venue and the authority to "ondu"t the preliminary

investigation, we are "onstrained to dismiss the same for la" of 6urisdi"tion.The holding of a

preliminary investigation is a fun"tion of the >?e"utive =epartment and not of the *udi"iary.!7-etitioner should therefore address their plea to the =epartment of *usti"e that has "ontrol and

supervision over the "ondu"t of preliminary investigations.

Nonetheless, even if the Court had 6urisdi"tion over the issue, petitioners motion should still be

denied be"ause it failed to allege and prove that the City -rose"utor of Cebu has been a"tuallyaffe"ted by the publi"ity. e held in ebb v. =e 0eon:!A

$e that as it may, we re"ogniBe that pervasive and pre6udi"ial publi"ity under "ertain "ir"umstan"es

"an deprive an a""used of his due pro"ess right to fair trial. Thus, in Martelino, et al. vs. Alejandro,

et al., we held that to warrant a finding of pre6udi"ial publi"ity there must be allegation and proof

that the 6udges have been unduly influen"ed, not simply that they might be, by the barrage of

publi"ity. 8n the "ase at bar, we find nothing in the re"ords that will prove that the tone and "ontent

of the publi"ity that attended the investigation of petitioners fatally infe"ted the fairness and

impartiality of the =#* -anel. -etitioners "annot 6ust rely on the subliminal effe"ts of publi"ity on

the sense of fairness of the =#* -anel, for these are basi"ally unbenown and beyondnowing. To be sure, the =#* -anel is "omposed of an ssistant Chief


7/7

t best, appellant "an only "on6ure possibility of pre6udi"e on the part of the trial 6udge due to the

barrage of publi"ity that "hara"teriBed the investigation and trial of the "ase. 8nMartelino, et al. v.

Alejandro, et al., we re6e"ted this standard of possibility of pre6udi"e and adopted the test of actual

prejudiceas we ruled that to warrant a finding of pre6udi"ial publi"ity, there must be allegation and

proof that the 6udges have been unduly influen"ed, not simply that they might be, by the barrage of

publi"ity. 8n the "ase at bar, the re"ords do not show that the trial 6udge developedactual

bias against appellant as a "onseuen"e of the e?tensive media "overage of the pre&trial and trial

of his "ase. The totalityofcircumstancesof the "ase does not prove this a"tual bias and he has notdis"harged the burden.31

e liewise dismiss the "omplaint filed by *udge +artin . #"ampo against ttorneys

aymundo . rmovit, amon . Teleron and $ernardito /lorido for la" of "on"rete eviden"e to

prove that said lawyers deliberately withheld from the Court the orders he issued with intent to

mislead the Court.

/inally, we also deny the motion of the prose"utors to dismiss the petition on the ground that it

was not filed by the proper party. The prose"utors argue that petitioner /ran"is"o *uan 0arranaga

is no longer a minor under .. ;A)9, thus, his mother, +argarita 5. 0arranaga, does not have theauthority to file the instant petition as his representative. 8t appears, however, that on #"tober ;,

1997, petitioners mother filed a supplemental petition for habeas corpuson his behalf. This

"onverted the petition at bar to one for habeas corpus. NI petitionersurgent motion to implement petitioners release 23 =8

Documents

Chiong Sisters