Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 68 views

    Lava vs. Gonzales

    Uploaded by

    alchupot
    The petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his arrest warrant for the charge of "Rebellion Complex". The information was later amended to simply charge rebellion. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the case, finding that no new preliminary investigation was needed since the amendment did not change the nature of the crime charged. The Court also noted that even if the arrest warrant was defective, the arrest was still legal because the petitioner could be detained based on reasonable belief of committing an offense and was promptly delivered to authorities.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lava vs. Gonzales

    Uploaded by

    alchupot
    68 views1 page
    The petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his arrest warrant for the charge of "Rebellion Complex". The information was later amended to simply charge rebellion. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the case, finding that no new preliminary investigation was needed since the amendment did not change the nature of the crime charged. The Court also noted that even if the arrest warrant was defective, the arrest was still legal because the petitioner could be detained based on reasonable belief of committing an offense and was promptly delivered to authorities.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his arrest warrant for the charge of "Rebellion Complex". The information was later amended to simply charge rebellion. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the case, finding that no new preliminary investigation was needed since the amendment did not change the nature of the crime charged. The Court also noted that even if the arrest warrant was defective, the arrest was still legal because the petitioner could be detained based on reasonable belief of committing an offense and was promptly delivered to authorities.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    68 views1 page

    Lava vs. Gonzales

    Uploaded by

    alchupot
    The petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his arrest warrant for the charge of "Rebellion Complex". The information was later amended to simply charge rebellion. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the case, finding that no new preliminary investigation was needed since the amendment did not change the nature of the crime charged. The Court also noted that even if the arrest warrant was defective, the arrest was still legal because the petitioner could be detained based on reasonable belief of committing an offense and was promptly delivered to authorities.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    JESUS LAVA, petitioner, vs.LT. COL. OSCAR C. GONZALES, Chief Intelligence Officer of the Philippine Constabulary , respondent.

    L-23048 July 31, 1964 Paredes, J.

    Facts: This is an instant petition for the issuance for a writ of habeas corpus with application for temporary restraining order or ex parte preliminary investigation Warrant of Arrest issued by the CFI Manila is defective

    The offense described in said Warrant of Arrest was Rebellion Complex, but the information was amended and the petitioner can still be held guilty for simple rebellion

    Issue: WON a new preliminary investigation is necessary after the amendment of the information involving no change in nature of the crime Instant petition for restraining Order or Preliminary Investigation ---->SC----> Denied

    SC ruling: NO. The petition is DISMISSED


    A new preliminary investigation is not necessary after the amendment of the information for the reason that there has been no change in the nature of the crime charged, which is rebellion, Moreover, the accused petitioner who was already custody when the amended was filed, should have asked, but did not, for a reinvestigation of said case, within the period five (5) days from the time he learned of the amended information (sec. 15, Rule 112, Rev. Rules).

    Granting arguendo, that the warrant of arrest in question is defective, still petitioners arrest is legal because an offender can be taken into custody, by any officer of the law, or by any private, individual, even without any warrant of arrest, when an offense has in fact been committed and the arresting officer or individual, has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it (Sec. 6-b, Rule 113, Rev. Rules), and forthwith deliver the arrested person to the judicial authorities, as was done in this case (Sec. 17, ibid).

    You might also like