Estate of Williams v. Percy

A respondent's voluntary appearance, manifested by filing a comment seeking affirmative relief from the court, constitutes voluntary submission to jurisdiction and is equivalent to service under Section 4, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court; however, an acquittal by grant of demurrer to evidence is final and unappealable, and only the Office of the Solicitor General may bring an appeal in behalf of the People in criminal proceedings, such that a private complainant's petition for certiorari challenging such acquittal cannot prosper and remand would violate the accused's constitutional right against double jeopardy.

Murray Philip Williams died, and Letters of Administration were issued by the RTC of Olongapo City in favor of Denis Michael Stanley on July 22, 2014 in Special Proceeding Case No. 65-0-12. Prior to his death, Williams had allegedly entrusted two of his vehicles—a red 2007 Mercedes Benz ML500 and a white platinum metallic 2011 Ford Expedition—to respondent William Victor Percy for safekeeping. The dispute arose when Percy failed to return the vehicles upon Stanley's demand, prompting the filing of criminal charges for carnapping.

Following the death of Murray Philip Williams, Letters of Administration were issued by Branch 72 of the RTC of Olongapo City in favor of Denis Michael Stanley on July 22, 2014 in Special Proceeding Case No. 65-0-12. On August 12, 2015, Stanley filed a Complaint-Affidavit for carnapping and estafa against William Victor Percy before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Olongapo City, Zambales. Stanley alleged that prior to his death, Williams had entrusted two of his cars to Percy for safekeeping: a red 2007 Mercedes Benz ML500 with Plate No. ZGE-201 and a white platinum metallic 2011 Ford Expedition 4x4 AT Eddie Bauer EL with Engine No. AEB52740 and Chassis No. 1FMJK1J5XAEB52740. When Stanley demanded the return of the vehicles, Percy failed to comply, prompting the filing of the criminal complaint.

In his Counter-Affidavit, Percy denied that the two vehicles were entrusted to him by Williams. He asserted that the vehicles were the subject of a transaction between Williams and one William James Wardle, the details of which he was not privy to. On June 30, 2016, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Olongapo City issued a Resolution finding probable cause to file a criminal case for two counts of carnapping against Percy. Percy was accordingly indicted by virtue of two Informations dated August 22, 2016, charging him with taking, stealing, and carrying away the Mercedes Benz and the Ford Expedition, both belonging to the deceased Williams, with intent to gain and without the owner's consent.

The cases were consolidated and raffled to Branch 72 of the RTC of Olongapo City. During the trial, the prosecution presented its documentary and testimonial evidence and made a formal offer of evidence. Thereafter, Percy filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence, followed by the corresponding Demurrer to Evidence, praying for dismissal on the ground that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to prove the elements of carnapping. On October 16, 2018, the RTC issued an Order granting the demurrer to evidence and dismissing the cases, reasoning that the prosecution failed to adduce the quantum of evidence required to convict Percy of two counts of carnapping.

Dispensing with the filing of a motion for reconsideration, and admittedly without securing the conformity of the People through the Office of the Solicitor General, Stanley filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA, asserting that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the demurrer despite the prosecution having established all elements of the crime charged. The CA dismissed the petition outright on April 24, 2019 for failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of Percy, finding that Stanley had served the petition only on Percy's counsel and not on Percy himself, and that Stanley's alternative request for a 30-day extension lacked justification. Stanley moved for reconsideration, arguing that Percy had voluntarily submitted to the CA's jurisdiction by filing a Comment to the petition dated March 18, 2019. The CA denied the motion on September 26, 2019, prompting the present recourse.

• Voluntary Submission to Jurisdiction: Petitioner maintained that by interposing a Comment to the petition for certiorari without expressing any objections, Percy voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the appellate court, and that the case should be decided on the merits rather than on technicalities.
• Civil Aspect of the Case: Petitioner asseverated that the Estate of Williams is not precluded from questioning the civil aspect of the case on its own, contending that because the Estate never made any reservation to separately pursue the civil aspect, it maintains an interest in the dismissal of the criminal aspect.

• Lack of Authority to Appeal: Respondent contended that the instant petition should be dismissed because it seeks to appeal an acquittal, which only the Office of the Solicitor General has the authority to do.

• Jurisdiction over the Person of the Respondent: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of respondent Percy.
• Authority to Appeal an Acquittal: Whether Stanley, as administrator of the Estate of Williams, had the authority to file the petition for certiorari challenging the RTC's grant of demurrer to evidence without the conformity of the OSG.
• Double Jeopardy: Whether remand of the case to the CA would violate Percy's right against double jeopardy.

• Jurisdiction over the Person of the Respondent: Yes, the CA erred. Percy voluntarily submitted to the CA's jurisdiction when he filed a Comment seeking affirmative relief, which is equivalent to service under Section 4, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.
• Authority to Appeal an Acquittal: No. Only the OSG may bring or defend actions on behalf of the People in criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and the CA; Stanley's petition before the CA exclusively challenged the criminal aspect and contained no discussion of the civil aspect.
• Double Jeopardy: Yes. An order granting a demurrer to evidence is a judgment of acquittal that is final and unappealable; remand would place Percy twice in jeopardy for offenses from which he had already been acquitted.

• Jurisdiction over the Person of the Respondent: Jurisdiction over the person of a respondent in an original action before the CA is acquired either by service on the respondent of the court's order or resolution indicating its initial action on the petition, or by the respondent's voluntary submission to such jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 4, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. Voluntary appearance occurs when a party, without directly assailing the court's lack of jurisdiction, seeks affirmative relief from the court. Percy filed a Comment to the petition dated March 18, 2019, praying for the outright dismissal of Stanley's petition on the ground that only the OSG may question an acquittal. This constituted voluntary submission to the CA's jurisdiction, as Percy sought affirmative relief without contesting the court's jurisdiction. His voluntary appearance was therefore equivalent to service, and the CA erred in concluding otherwise.

• Authority to Appeal an Acquittal: In the appeal of criminal cases before the CA or the Supreme Court, the authority to represent the People is vested solely in the Solicitor General. Stanley acknowledged this rule but attempted to circumvent it by claiming he was protecting the Estate's rights in the civil aspect. The Court rejected this as a lame excuse, noting that not a single sentence in Stanley's petition before the CA discussed the civil aspect; every paragraph addressed the elements of carnapping and the trial court's alleged error in acquitting Percy. The sole assignment of error uniformly contended that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the demurrer despite the prosecution having established all elements of the crime. Stanley was thus seeking to appeal an acquittal despite knowing he had neither the right nor the authority to do so. Even assuming arguendo that Stanley was questioning the civil aspect, the petition was still fatally defective because he failed to file a motion for reconsideration with the RTC, which is a condition sine qua non for a petition for certiorari, and none of the recognized exceptions applied.

• Double Jeopardy: An order granting a demurrer to evidence is a judgment on the merits tantamount to an acquittal. The finality-of-acquittal doctrine holds that a judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable, and any attempt to overturn it violates the accused's right against double jeopardy under Section 21, Article III of the Constitution. The sole exception—where the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or the trial was a sham—did not apply, because the prosecution completed its presentation of all documentary and testimonial evidence and made a formal offer of evidence without impediment. Directing the CA to give due course to Stanley's petition would therefore place Percy twice in jeopardy for offenses from which he had already been acquitted.

• Voluntary Appearance as Equivalent to Service — Jurisdiction over the person of a respondent may be acquired not only by service of the court's order or resolution but also by the respondent's voluntary submission to jurisdiction. There is voluntary appearance when a party, without directly assailing the court's lack of jurisdiction, seeks affirmative relief from the court. In this case, Percy's filing of a Comment praying for dismissal of the petition constituted voluntary appearance, equivalent to service under Section 4, Rule 46.

• Finality-of-Acquittal Doctrine — A judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. An order granting a demurrer to evidence is a judgment on the merits tantamount to an acquittal, and any attempt to overturn it runs afoul of the accused's right against double jeopardy under Section 21, Article III of the Constitution. The sole exception is when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham, rendering the assailed judgment void. Neither circumstance obtained here, as the prosecution completed its evidence and made a formal offer.

• Exclusive Authority of the OSG in Criminal Appeals — Only the Office of the Solicitor General may bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, or represent the People or State in criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and the CA. A private complainant, such as the administrator of an estate, has no authority to appeal an acquittal in a criminal case. While the civil aspect may be independently pursued, a petition that exclusively challenges the criminal aspect cannot be treated as a civil action.

• Motion for Reconsideration as Condition Sine Qua Non for Certiorari — A motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari, its purpose being to afford the court an opportunity to correct any actual or perceived error. While exceptions exist, none applied in this case, as Stanley could not unilaterally determine whether a motion for reconsideration was necessary.

• "His voluntary appearance is equivalent to service." — This sentence encapsulates the Court's ruling on the jurisdictional issue: Percy's filing of a Comment seeking affirmative relief constituted voluntary submission to the CA's jurisdiction, satisfying the requirement of Section 4, Rule 46.

• "Such dismissal of a criminal case by the grant of demurrer to evidence may not be appealed, for to do so would be to place the accused in double jeopardy. The verdict being one of acquittal, the case ends there." — This passage, quoted from People vs. Sandiganbayan, articulates the finality-of-acquittal doctrine and explains why the Court refused to remand the case despite finding that the CA erred on the jurisdictional question.

• "It is crystal clear that Stanley was seeking to appeal an acquittal in a criminal case despite knowing all along that he had neither the right nor the authority to do so." — This statement defines the Court's rejection of Stanley's attempt to recharacterize his petition as pursuing the civil aspect, underscoring that the petition's contents exclusively addressed the criminal elements and the trial court's evaluation of evidence.

• People vs. Sandiganbayan, 488 Phil. 293 (2004) — Cited as controlling authority for the proposition that a grant of demurrer to evidence is a judgment on the merits tantamount to acquittal and may not be appealed, as doing so would place the accused in double jeopardy.
• People vs. Atienza, 688 Phil. 122 (2012) — Cited for the sole exception to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine: where the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as denial of the prosecution's opportunity to present its case or a sham trial.
• People vs. Alapan, 823 Phil. 272 (2018) — Cited for the rule that the authority to represent the People in criminal appeals before the Supreme Court and the CA is vested solely in the Solicitor General.
• G.V. Florida Transport, Inc. vs. Tiara Commercial Corporation, 820 Phil. 235 (2017) — Cited for the definition of voluntary appearance: when a party, without directly assailing the court's lack of jurisdiction, seeks affirmative relief from the court.
• Siok Ping Tang vs. Subic Bay Distribution, Inc., 653 Phil. 124 (2010) — Cited for the enumerated exceptions to the rule requiring a motion for reconsideration as a condition sine qua non for certiorari.

• Section 4, Rule 46, Rules of Court — Provides that the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the respondent by service on him of the court's order or resolution indicating its initial action on the petition, or by his voluntary submission to such jurisdiction. Applied to hold that Percy's voluntary appearance through his Comment constituted submission to the CA's jurisdiction.
• Section 3, Rule 46, Rules of Court — Requires that the petition be filed together with proof of service on the respondent, and that the petition contain the full names and actual addresses of all petitioners and respondents. The CA relied on this provision to dismiss the petition for failure to serve Percy directly.
• Section 21, Article III, 1987 Constitution — Provides that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. Applied to bar remand, as the grant of demurrer to evidence was an acquittal and remand would violate Percy's right against double jeopardy.

Hernando, Dimaampao, and Singh, JJ., concurred. Caguioa (Chairperson) wrote a separate concurring opinion, the text of which is not reproduced in the provided decision.