Boiser v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Three Informations were filed against petitioner Lyndon D. Boiser charging him with acts of lasciviousness, other acts of child abuse, and rape of minor AAA. Petitioner filed a motion for a hearing to determine probable cause and to hold the issuance of a warrant of arrest in abeyance. The family court directed the prosecution to submit additional evidence and the transcript of proceedings during the preliminary investigation. The prosecutor manifested that no additional evidence was available and submitted personal notes due to the non-availability of a stenographer. The court then directed the completion of the preliminary investigation with a stenographer. A Reinvestigation Report was submitted, maintaining the existence of probable cause. Procedural History: Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion for Determination of Probable Cause, which the family court granted, finding probable cause, issuing warrants of arrest, and fixing bail. Petitioner filed multiple motions to inhibit judges, leading to the cases being raffled to different branches. Petitioner then filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash the Informations, which was denied. After further motions for reconsideration and inhibitions, the cases were raffled to Branch 3. The RTC denied petitioner's omnibus motion for reconsideration to quash the informations and subsequently denied a second omnibus motion to quash, setting the arraignment. Petitioner refused to enter a plea, and a plea of not guilty was entered for him. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), claiming grave abuse of discretion by the family court in denying his omnibus motions to quash. The CA affirmed the RTC orders, holding that an order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory and not appealable, and that petitioner failed to prove grave abuse of discretion. The CA denied petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed the instant petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the Regional Trial Court's denial of the petitioner's omnibus motion to quash the informations, and whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy against an order denying a motion to quash. Whether the Regional Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error in affirming the orders of the Regional Trial Court. The dispositive portion of the Supreme Court's Resolution states: "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED."
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari as a remedy against an order denying a motion to quash and the existence of probable cause: The Supreme Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy against an order denying a motion to quash. The established procedural rule dictates that the accused should proceed to trial without prejudice to presenting special defenses invoked in the motion to quash. If an adverse decision is rendered after trial on the merits, the accused may then appeal the decision in the manner authorized by law. This principle ensures the orderly progression of cases and prevents the use of interlocutory orders to delay proceedings. The Court emphasized that the purpose of a preliminary investigation is solely to determine if a crime has been committed and if there is probable cause to believe the accused is guilty, not to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed the findings of the investigating prosecutor and the trial judge that probable cause exists to indict the petitioner for the offenses charged. Absent any showing of arbitrariness on the part of the investigating prosecutor or any other officer authorized by law to conduct a preliminary investigation, courts are generally bound to defer to their findings and determination of probable cause. The determination of probable cause is primarily the function of the prosecutor. The Court noted that a finding of probable cause requires only evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect; it does not require clear and convincing evidence of guilt, evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. On the issue of jurisdiction over the person: The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's allegation that the RTC had not acquired jurisdiction over his person was rendered moot and academic. This was due to the petitioner's arraignment in the three cases and his subsequent participation in the proceedings. Arraignment and participation in the proceedings constitute voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, thereby curing any potential defect in the acquisition of jurisdiction over his person.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy against an order denying a motion to quash; the accused should proceed to trial and appeal any adverse decision thereafter. Courts generally defer to the prosecutor's finding of probable cause absent arbitrariness.