Case Digest (G.R. No. 243604)
Facts:
The case involves Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels, Inc. (petitioner) as the appellant and Josedelio Eliz Menezes Asistio and Anthony Noveno Clavito (respondents) as the appellees. The events leading to this case began on February 14, 2016, when the petitioner, a corporation operating the Solaire Resort and Casino in Parañaque City, filed a criminal complaint for Estafa against the respondents. The complaint alleged that respondent Asistio, a dealer and employee of the casino, conspired with respondent Clavito, a guest, to defraud the petitioner through a scheme known as "past-posting" or "late-betting." This fraudulent activity purportedly allowed Clavito to claim winnings from a baccarat game after the results were already known, resulting in a loss of PHP 220,000.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City handled the case, where Clavito was arrested and later posted bail on March 4, 2016. He pleaded not guilty during his arraignment, and the tria...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 243604)
Facts:
Background of the Case
- Petitioner Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels, Inc. (petitioner) operates Solaire Resort and Casino in Parañaque City.
- The case stems from an Estafa case filed by petitioner against respondents Josedelio Eliz Meneses Asistio (respondent Asistio), a casino dealer, and Anthony Noveno Clavito (respondent Clavito), a casino patron.
- Respondents were accused of engaging in "past-posting" or "late-betting," a fraudulent scheme where bets are placed after the game's outcome is known, resulting in a loss of P220,000.00 for petitioner.
Criminal Proceedings
- Petitioner filed a criminal case against respondents for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 3(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
- Respondent Asistio remains at large, while respondent Clavito was arrested, posted bail, and pleaded not guilty during arraignment.
- During the trial, respondent Clavito jumped bail, and his counsel withdrew due to inability to contact him.
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted respondent Clavito, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of Estafa beyond reasonable doubt.
Petition for Certiorari
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC judge.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition as against respondent Clavito, citing lack of jurisdiction over his person due to the unserved resolution.
Issue:
- Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of respondent Clavito.
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA's resolutions.
- The CA correctly dismissed the case as against respondent Clavito because it failed to acquire jurisdiction over his person due to the unserved resolution.
- The Court held that jurisdiction over the person of a respondent in a certiorari case is acquired through service of the court's resolution or voluntary submission, which did not occur in this case.
Ratio:
- Jurisdiction over the person of a respondent in a certiorari case is essential and is acquired through service of the court's resolution or the respondent's voluntary submission.
- The CA did not acquire jurisdiction over respondent Clavito because its resolution remained unserved, and respondent Clavito did not voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction.
- The failure to serve the resolution on respondent Clavito justified the dismissal of the case as against him.
- The Court emphasized that a party who fails to participate in the proceedings cannot claim deprivation of due process, as such failure constitutes a waiver of the right to be heard.