FACTS:

Francisco Juan Larranaga, a minor, is facing two counts of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. He filed a petition seeking to annul the informations and warrant of arrest, asserting that he was denied the right to preliminary investigation. Alternatively, he requested a preliminary investigation and his release from detention pending the investigation. The Solicitor General recommended a regular preliminary investigation and the petitioner's release. The court set aside the inquest investigation, ordered a regular preliminary investigation, and granted the petitioner's release pending the investigation. However, Judge Martin Ocampo deferred the resolution on the petitioner's motion for immediate release, stating that they had not yet received an official copy of the court's resolution. The petitioner filed an urgent motion to order his immediate release. The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that the petitioner's arrest and detention were lawful and that his arraignment was valid.

The primary issues in this case are whether the petitioner is entitled to a regular preliminary investigation and whether he should be released from detention pending the investigation. The petitioner was initially arrested without a warrant but was later allowed to go home after questioning the legality of the warrantless arrest. The petitioner argues for a regular preliminary investigation, while the prosecutors contend for an inquest investigation and claim that the petitioner waived his right to it.

The petitioner requested a regular preliminary investigation before the City Prosecutor, but it was denied. The petitioner filed a petition with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it. The petitioner then brought the case to the Supreme Court, asserting his entitlement to a regular preliminary investigation. On the same day, the City Prosecutor directed the petitioner and his counsel to appear for preliminary investigation, but they refused, fearing that it would be considered a waiver of their right to a regular preliminary investigation based on their earlier demand.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioner waived his right to preliminary investigation

2. Whether the petitioner should be released from detention pending the investigation

3. Whether the absence of a preliminary investigation justifies the petitioner's release

4. Whether the court has jurisdiction to change the venue and authority to conduct the preliminary investigation

5. Whether or not the petition for habeas corpus was filed by the proper party.

6. Whether or not the petitioner should be immediately released pending the preliminary investigation.

7. Whether or not the complaint against the attorneys should be dismissed.

8. Whether or not the motion to change the venue and authority to conduct the preliminary investigation should be granted.

RULING:

1. The petitioner did not waive his right to preliminary investigation. The right to preliminary investigation is not waived unless the waiver appears to be clear and informed. In this case, the petitioner actively and consistently demanded a regular preliminary investigation before he was charged in court and refused to enter a plea during arraignment due to a pending case regarding his right to a regular preliminary investigation. Therefore, the petitioner did not waive his right to preliminary investigation.

2. The petitioner should not be released from detention pending the investigation. The filing of charges and the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the petitioner cured the defect of his initial illegal detention. Even if no warrant was issued, the trial court still lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner's person since he raised grounds other than the court's jurisdiction in his motion to quash, thereby submitting himself to the court's jurisdiction.

3. The absence of a preliminary investigation does not justify the petitioner's release. The absence of preliminary investigations does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case or render the information defective. If there were no preliminary investigations and the defendants raise the absence before entering their plea, the court should conduct it or remand the case to the inferior court for a preliminary investigation.

4. The court does not have jurisdiction to change the venue and authority to conduct the preliminary investigation. The holding of a preliminary investigation is a function of the Executive branch and not within the jurisdiction of the court.

5. The petition for habeas corpus may be filed either by the party for whom it is intended or by someone on his behalf. Thus, the petition filed by the petitioner's mother as his representative is valid.

6. The order for the immediate release of the petitioner pending the preliminary investigation is set aside. Thus, the petitioner's urgent motion for release is denied.

7. The complaint against the attorneys is dismissed.

8. The motion to change the venue and authority to conduct the preliminary investigation is denied.

PRINCIPLES:

• The right to preliminary investigation cannot be waived unless the waiver is clear and informed.

• The filing of charges and the issuance of a warrant of arrest will cure the defect of an initial illegal detention.

• The absence of preliminary investigations does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case or render the information defective.

• The conduct of a preliminary investigation is the function of the Executive branch and not within the jurisdiction of the court.

• The holding of a preliminary investigation is a function of the Executive Department and not of the Judiciary.

• Pervasive and prejudicial publicity can deprive an accused of their right to fair trial under certain circumstances.

• Allegation and proof of actual undue influence by the barrage of publicity is required to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity.

• Responsible reporting enhances an accused's right to a fair trial.

• Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial.

• A petition for habeas corpus may be filed by the party for whom it is intended or by someone on his behalf.

• The immediate release of a petitioner pending the preliminary investigation may not be granted.

• A complaint against attorneys may be dismissed.

• The motion to change the venue and authority to conduct the preliminary investigation may be denied.