Delaying Tactics Unveiled: Repeated Motions to Quash in Criminal Proceedings

The Supreme Court has firmly reminded litigants that the courts will not tolerate procedural maneuvers designed solely to delay criminal proceedings. In Boiser v. People (G.R. No. 180299, January 31, 2008), the Court denied a petition that arose from a series of repeated motions to quash informations and to inhibit judges — tactics it described as "reprehensible" and a "ploy to delay the proceedings." The ruling clarifies the proper remedy when a motion to quash is denied and underscores the limited purpose of preliminary investigations.

The Facts of the Case

In June 2004, three Informations were filed against Lyndon D. Boiser before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagbilaran, Bohol, charging him with acts of lasciviousness, other acts of child abuse, and rape of a minor. What followed was a lengthy series of procedural filings.

Boiser filed motions to determine probable cause, then successive motions to inhibit the judges of Branches 1, 2, and 4 of the RTC. All three judges inhibited themselves, and the cases were eventually raffled to Branch 49. On August 19, 2005, Boiser filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash the three Informations, which was denied. He moved for reconsideration, and the judge of Branch 49 also inhibited himself. The cases were then raffled to Branch 3.

On November 6, 2006, the new judge denied the motion for reconsideration. Undeterred, Boiser filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion to Quash on November 22, 2006, which was again denied. A day before his scheduled arraignment, he filed yet another motion for reconsideration. When he refused to enter a plea, the court entered a plea of not guilty for him.

Boiser then went to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which the CA denied. He elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The central question was whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC's denial of Boiser's omnibus motions to quash the Informations.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit. In doing so, it laid down several important principles.

The Proper Remedy Is Trial, Not Certiorari

The Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy against an order denying a motion to quash. Such an order is interlocutory — it does not finally dispose of the case. The accused should instead proceed to trial, without prejudice to presenting the special defenses raised in the motion, and if an adverse decision is rendered after trial, appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law. This principle was cited in the decision from an earlier case, though the specific citation is not available in the ASG law library.

Probable Cause Is a Low Threshold

The Court also clarified the nature of probable cause. Citing Serapio v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148468, January 28, 2003), it explained that 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. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, nor on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.

Courts, as a rule, defer to the prosecutor's finding and determination of probable cause, absent any showing of arbitrariness on the part of the investigating prosecutor.

Jurisdiction Over the Person Is Acquired by Arraignment

Boiser also argued that the RTC had not acquired jurisdiction over his person. The Court ruled this issue moot and academic because he had already been arraigned in the three cases and had taken part in the proceedings.

Repeated Motions Are a Delay Tactic

Most significantly, the Court called out Boiser's conduct directly. His "insistent filing of numerous motions to inhibit the judge" and "of motions to quash" was a ploy to delay the proceedings. The Court reminded him that if he was truly innocent, he should "bravely go to trial and prove his defense."

Practical Takeaways

• An order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory. It cannot be appealed immediately. The proper course is to proceed to trial and raise the defenses on appeal if convicted.
• Certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for appeal. It is available only for grave abuse of discretion, not for mere errors of judgment.
• Preliminary investigation has a limited purpose. It is not a trial on the merits. It merely determines whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused committed the crime.
• Courts defer to prosecutors on probable cause. Unless there is a showing of arbitrariness, the courts will respect the prosecutor's determination.
• Repeated motions to inhibit judges and to quash informations can backfire. Courts view such tactics as delaying maneuvers that impede the orderly administration of justice.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.