567 Phil. 411
Before the Court is a petition for review on
certiorari[2] assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated June 5, 2007 in CA-G.R. CEB-SP. No. 02368.
[3]
The main issue in this case is whether the CA committed reversible
error in affirming the decision of the RTC which denied petitioner’s
omnibus motion to quash the informations filed against him.
Based on the findings of the CA, the pertinent facts of the case are as follows:
On June 4, 2004, three (3) Informations were filed against petitioner,
charging him with acts of lasciviousness, other acts of child abuse,
and rape
[4] of minor AAA before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 1, Tagbilaran, Bohol.
On June 11, 2004, petitioner 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. On June 16,
2004, private respondent filed an Opposition thereto.
On June, 18, 2004, the family court issued three (3) separate Orders in
the three (3) criminal cases, directing the prosecution to submit
additional evidence on the cases along with the transcript of
proceedings during the preliminary investigation. On June 20, 2004, the
prosecutor filed a Manifestation saying that the prosecution had no
additional evidence to present and that due to the non-availability of
a stenographer who could take down notes during the preliminary
investigation on April 28, 2004 and May 7, 2004, he personally took
down notes, and submitted certified photocopies of the same to the
court. On July 2, 2004, the family court directed the City Prosecution
Office in Tagbilaran City to complete the preliminary investigation in
a regular manner with duly recorded proceedings attended by a
stenographer. On August 4, 2004, a Reinvestigation Report was submitted
by the prosecutor maintaining the existence of probable cause in the
three cases.
On August 9, 2004, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion for Determination
of Probable Cause. On September 10, 2004, the family court issued three
(3) separate Orders finding probable cause against petitioner in the
three (3) cases, issued a warrant of arrest against him and fixed the
corresponding bail for each case. On November 19 and 24, 2004,
petitioner filed Motions to Inhibit the judge of Branch 1 from hearing
the 3 cases. The judge acceded. Thereafter, the cases were raffled to
Branch 2 of the same court. On March 1, 2005, petitioner again filed a
Motion to Inhibit the judge of Branch 2. The same was granted and the
case was raffled to Branch 4 of the same court. Then again, petitioner
filed a Motion to Inhibit the Judge of Branch 4. The three (3) cases
were then raffled to Branch 49 of the said court.
On August 19, 2005, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash the
three (3) Informations to which private respondent filed an Opposition.
On June 30, 2006, Branch 49 issued a Joint Order denying the aforesaid
motion. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by petitioner citing
absence of probable cause and lack of jurisdiction over his person as
grounds in support of his motion. However, upon the request of private
respondent’s parents, the Judge of Branch 49 inhibited himself from
hearing the three (3) cases. Finally, the cases were raffled to Branch
3 of the RTC of Tagbilaran City, Bohol, presided over by Judge Venancio
J. Amila (Judge Amila).
On November 6, 2006, the lower court issued an Omnibus Order denying
petitioner’s omnibus motion for reconsideration to quash the
informations. On November 22, 2006, petitioner filed anew an Urgent
Omnibus Motion to Quash. On November 30, 2006, the RTC issued an Order
denying the second omnibus motion to quash, and set the arraignment on
December 15, 2006. A day before the arraignment, petitioner filed a
Second Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration of the order denying his
motion to quash.
On December 15, 2006, petitioner reminded Judge Amila of his second
omnibus motion for reconsideration. Judge Amila, in open court, denied
for lack of merit the second omnibus motion for reconsideration. Upon
arraignment, petitioner refused to enter a plea for the 3 cases.
Accordingly, a plea of not guilty was entered for petitioner for each
of the 3 criminal cases.
On January 2, 2007, petitioner filed a Petition for
certiorari[5]
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.
On June 5, 2007, the CA rendered a Decision
[6]
affirming the Orders of the RTC. In denying the petition, the CA
ratiocinated that it cannot reverse the RTC orders because: (1) an
order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory and not appealable;
and (2) the petitioner failed to positively prove grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the RTC judge in the issuance of the assailed
orders. The
fallo of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed orders of the respondent judge are hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.[7]
A motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner which the CA denied in a Resolution
[8] dated September 19, 2007.
On November 16, 2007, petitioner filed the instant case raising the following arguments:
The Honorable Court of Appeals has decided [a] question of
substance, not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has
decided it in a way not in accord with law or with the applicable
decisions of the Supreme Court:
That the Honorable Court of Appeals has so far departed from the
accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned
such departure by the lower court.[9]
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.
[10]
Based on the findings of the investigating prosecutor and of the trial
judge, 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.
[11]
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. A finding of
probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely
than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect.
Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of
guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of
guilt.
[12]
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. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez, Corona, and
Reyes, JJ., concur.
[1] The name of the RTC judge
is omitted in the title pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45, Rules of Court.
Likewise omitted in the title are the names of the minor and his mother
pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262 and the ruling of the Court in People
v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
[2] RULES OF COURT, Rule 45.
[3] Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, with Associate Justices Antonio L. Villamor and Stephen C. Cruz, concurring;
rollo, pp. 62-70.
[4] Criminal Case Nos. 12252, 12253, 12254, respectively.
[5] RULES OF COURT, Rule 65.
[6] Rollo, pp. 62-70.
[7] Id. at 70.
[8] Id. at 28.
[9] Id. at 46.
[10] Acharon v. Purisima, G.R. No. 23731, February 26, 1965, 13 SCRA 309.
[11] Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148468, January 28, 2003, 396 SCRA 443.
[12] Id.