Case #17 LYNDON D. BOISER, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. NO. 180299 - January 31, 2008

Facts:

Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals. 3 Informations were filed against Boiser, charging him with acts of lasciviousness,
other acts of child abuse, and rape of minor AAA before RTC Bohol. Boiser filed a Motion praying that a hearing be conducted to determine the existence of probable
cause and to hold in abeyance the issuance of a warrant of arrest against him. family court issued 3 separate Orders in the 3 criminal cases, directing the prosecution
to submit additional evidence. Prosecution had no additional evidence to present due to the non-availability of a stenographer. family court issued 3 separate Orders
finding probable cause against petitioner in the 3 cases, and issued a warrant of arrest. Petitioner filed 3 Motions to Inhibit the judges of Branch 1,2 and 4 from hearing
the 3 cases. The cases then raffled to Branch 49. petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash the 3 Informations and was denied by branch 49.

Finally, the cases were raffled to Branch 3 of the RTC of Tagbilaran City, Bohol. Lower court issued an Omnibus Order denying petitioner's omnibus motion for
reconsideration to quash the informations. RTC issued an Order denying the second omnibus motion to quash, and set the arraignment date. Upon arraignment,
petitioner refused to enter a plea for the 3 cases. Boiser then filed a Petition for certiorari before the CA claiming that the family court acted with grave abuse of
discretion in issuing the orders denying his omnibus motions to quash the informations. CA rendered a Decision affirming the Orders of the RTC. petitioner then filed
the instant case.

ISSUES:

Whether the CA decided question of substance, or has decided it in a way not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court.

RULING:

We resolve to deny the petition. A Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy against an order denying a motion to quash. The accused should
instead go to trial, without prejudice on his part to present the special defenses he had invoked in his motion and, if after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is
rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law

Probable cause exists to indict petitioner for the 3 offenses. Absent any showing of arbitrariness on the part of the investigating prosecutor or any other officer
authorized by law to conduct preliminary investigation, courts as a rule must defer to said officer's finding and determination of probable cause, since the determination
of the existence of probable cause is the function of the prosecutor.

It is obvious to this Court that petitioner's insistent filing of numerous motions to inhibit the judge hearing the 3 criminal cases and of motions to quash is a ploy
to delay the proceedings, a reprehensible tactic that impedes the orderly administration of justice. If he is truly innocent, petitioner should bravely go to trial and prove
his defense. After all, the purpose of a preliminary investigation is merely to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to
believe that the person accused of the crime is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.

As to the allegation of petitioner that the RTC has not acquired jurisdiction over his person, this issue has been rendered moot and academic with petitioner's
arraignment in the 3 cases and his taking part in the proceedings therein. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.