Case Digest (G.R. No. 249681)
Facts:
Estate of Murray Philip Williams, as represented by Denis Michael Stanley v. William Victor Percy, G.R. No. 249681, August 31, 2022, Supreme Court Third Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court.Following the death of Murray Philip Williams, Branch 72 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City issued Letters of Administration in favor of Denis Michael Stanley on July 22, 2014. On August 12, 2015, Stanley, acting for the Estate of Williams, filed a Complaint‑Affidavit for carnapping and estafa against William Victor Percy with the Provincial Prosecutor of Olongapo City, alleging that two vehicles entrusted to Percy were not returned. Percy denied the entrustment, claiming the vehicles were subject to a transaction involving a third party.
The City Prosecutor found probable cause on June 30, 2016, and two Informations for carnapping (filed August 22, 2016) were consolidated and tried before Branch 72, RTC of Olongapo City. The prosecution presented documentary and testimonial evidence and made a formal offer of documents. Percy moved for leave to file, and thereafter filed, a demurrer to evidence. On October 16, 2018, the RTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the criminal cases for lack of sufficient evidence.
Without securing conformity or authority from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to represent the People, Stanley filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking review of the RTC’s grant of the demurrer to evidence. The CA, in a Resolution dated April 14, 2019, dismissed the petition for failure to show service of the petition upon Percy at his current and complete address as required by Rule 46, Sec. 3–4; Stanley’s contention that service on Percy’s counsel sufficed and his request for an extension were denied. Stanley’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied in a September 26, 2019 CA resolution. Percy had, however, filed a Comment to the petition in the CA (dated March 18, 2019) praying for outright ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals acquire jurisdiction over the person of respondent William Victor Percy when he filed a Comment to the petition?
- Was Stanley’s petition to the Court of Appeals proper despite having been filed without the conformity or authority of the Office of the Solicitor General?
- Would giving due course to Stanley’s petition violate Percy’s constitutional pro...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)