G.R. No. 118644 - Velasco vs. Court of Appeals

Case Digest (G.R. No. 118644)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Parties and Nature of Proceeding

Petitioners: Director Epimaco A. Velasco (Director of NBI), NBI Special Operations Group members Special Investigators Flor L. Resurreccion and Antonio M. Erum, Jr., and the People of the Philippines.
Respondents: Felicitas S. Cuyag, on behalf of her common-law husband Lawrence A. Larkins.
The case involves a petition for review to set aside the Court of Appeals decision ordering the release of Larkins by writ of habeas corpus.

Chronology of Events

On September 16, 1993, RTC Pasig issued a warrant of arrest against Larkins for violations of B.P. Blg. 22.
On November 20, 1994, Desiree Alinea filed a complaint-affidavit before the NBI, accusing Larkins of rape allegedly committed on November 19, 1994 in Antipolo, Rizal.
On November 21, 1994, Special Investigators Resurreccion and Erum arrested Larkins without a warrant at his office in Makati; Alinea positively identified him as her assailant.
Larkins was detained at the NBI Detention Cell in Manila.
On November 22, 1994, Larkins posted bail for the earlier B.P. Blg. 22 charges; the RTC Pasig recalled the warrant of arrest directing his release unless detained for another cause.
The arresting officers refused to release him, citing detention for the alleged rape charge for inquest.
On November 23, 1994, Alinea executed a formal complaint for rape.
On December 2, 1994, the rape complaint was filed with the RTC Antipolo, Branch 71, docketed as Criminal Case No. 94-11794.
Larkins, through counsel, filed an Urgent Motion for Bail citing weak evidence, no intent to flee, and entitlement as a matter of right.
On December 6, 1994, a new counsel filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion to dismiss the complaint and for immediate release, alleging illegality of warrantless arrest.
The trial court denied bail and motion to dismiss on January 5, 1995, citing a serious offense and ordering a hold departure order for Larkins.
Felicitas S. Cuyag filed a petition for habeas corpus with certiorari before the Court of Appeals, challenging Larkins’ detention.
The Court of Appeals ordered the production of Larkins and eventually ordered his immediate release for illegal detention due to non-compliance with Rule 113 (warrantless arrest requirements) and absence of a valid complaint at the time of detention.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioners argued the arrest was lawful under Section 5(b), Rule 113, and that Larkins had been validly charged and bail was denied.
Private respondent contended that filing of complaint alone does not cure illegality absent an arrest or commitment warrant and relied on jurisprudence that warrantless arrest must be justified strictly.

Issues:

Was the warrantless arrest of Lawrence Larkins for rape lawful under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court?
Did the filing of the complaint and the subsequent RTC order denying bail cure defects, if any, in the initial arrest and justify the continued detention?
Is the writ of habeas corpus still available to Larkins despite the filing of the complaint and the RTC order?
Was the Court of Appeals correct in ordering the immediate release of Larkins on the grounds stated?

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (G.R. No. 118644) Core Legal Reasoning Model Expanded

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 118644) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 118644)
Core Legal Reasoning Model

Expanded

Case Digest (G.R. No. 118644)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model