GR 180299; (January, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 180299 ; January 31, 2008
LYNDON D. BOISER, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Lyndon D. Boiser was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagbilaran, Bohol, with acts of lasciviousness, other acts of child abuse, and rape of a minor. Following the filing of the Informations, Boiser filed a series of motions, including a motion to determine probable cause and multiple motions to inhibit the presiding judges of the branches to which his cases were raffled, resulting in the cases being transferred several times. He subsequently filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash the Informations, which was denied by the RTC. After his arraignment, where a plea of not guilty was entered for him, Boiser filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC orders denying his motion to quash.
The CA denied his petition. It ruled that an order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory and not appealable, and that Boiser failed to prove grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC judge. Boiser’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied, prompting this petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the RTC’s orders which denied petitioner’s omnibus motion to quash the Informations.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy against an order denying a motion to quash. The correct course of action for an accused is to proceed to trial, where he can present his special defenses, and if an adverse judgment is rendered, to appeal therefrom. The Court found no merit in Boiser’s challenge to the finding of probable cause. It emphasized that the determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is primarily an executive function of the prosecutor. Absent a clear showing of arbitrariness, courts must defer to the prosecutor’s finding, which in this case was affirmed by the trial judge. Probable cause merely requires evidence showing that more likely than not a crime was committed by the suspect; it does not demand proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Furthermore, the Court viewed Boiser’s successive motions to inhibit and to quash as a dilatory tactic impeding the administration of justice. His claim that the RTC had not acquired jurisdiction over his person was rendered moot by his voluntary submission to the court’s processes through his arraignment and participation in the proceedings. The Court concluded that the CA correctly affirmed the RTC’s orders.