G.R. No. 249681 , August 31, 2022
ESTATE OF MURRAY PHILIP WILLIAMS, AS REPRESENTED BY DENIS MICHAEL STANLEY, PETITIONER, V. WILLIAM VICTOR PERCY, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Following the death of Murray Philip Williams, Denis Michael Stanley was appointed as administrator of his estate. Stanley, on behalf of the estate, filed a criminal complaint for carnapping against William Victor Percy, alleging that Williams had entrusted two vehicles to Percy for safekeeping, which Percy failed to return. The Office of the City Prosecutor found probable cause, leading to the filing of two Informations for carnapping. The cases were consolidated and raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). After the prosecution presented its evidence, Percy filed a demurrer to evidence. The RTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the criminal cases, ruling that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to prove all elements of carnapping beyond reasonable doubt.
Stanley, without securing the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and without filing a motion for reconsideration before the RTC, directly filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). He alleged the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the demurrer. The CA dismissed Stanley’s petition outright. It found that Stanley failed to acquire jurisdiction over the person of Percy, as the petition was not served on Percy himself but only on his counsel of record, and Stanley could not provide Percy’s current and complete address despite a court directive.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal, emphasizing strict compliance with procedural rules for special civil actions like certiorari. Under Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, a petition for certiorari must be filed with proof of service on the respondent. Jurisdiction over the respondent is acquired either by service of the court’s order or resolution indicating initial action on the petition, or by the respondent’s voluntary submission. Service of the petition solely upon the respondent’s counsel of record in the lower court is insufficient for initiating a new proceeding before the appellate court. The petitioner bears the burden of providing the respondent’s current and complete address to effect proper service. Stanley’s failure to serve Percy personally and his inability to furnish his address constituted a fatal procedural defect that prevented the CA from acquiring jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court clarified that a petition for certiorari assailing the grant of a demurrer to evidence in a criminal case must be filed by the People of the Philippines, represented by the OSG. The private complainant, like Stanley, lacks the legal personality to appeal or file such a petition independently; their role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. Any recourse against the dismissal order rests solely with the State. Thus, even if the procedural defect on service were overlooked, Stanley’s petition was inherently flawed for being filed without the OSG’s conformity and for bypassing the requisite motion for reconsideration before the RTC, which is generally a condition precedent for filing a certiorari petition. The RTC’s order granting the demurrer was a final order that terminated the case, placing Percy in jeopardy of punishment, and the proper remedy for the prosecution was an appeal, not certiorari.