47. TREÑAS VS. PEOPLE offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory.

Furthermore, the
jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the
G.R. No. 195002. January 25, 2012.* allegations in the complaint or information. And once it is so shown, the
HECTOR TREÑAS, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence
respondent. adduced during the trial shows that the offense was committed
Remedial Law; Appeals; Petition for Review on Certiorari; As a rule, only somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of
questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the jurisdiction. In a criminal case, the prosecution must not only prove that the
Rules of Court, Exceptions.—As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in offense was committed, it must also prove the identity of the accused and the
a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In many instances, fact that the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the court.
however, this Court has laid down exceptions to this general rule, as follows: Criminal Law; Estafa; Elements of Estafa under Article 315, Paragraph 1
(1) When the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are (b) of the Revised Penal Code.—Under Article 315, par. 1 (b) of the RPC, the
contradictory; (2) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on elements of estafa are as follows: (1) that money, goods or other personal
speculation, surmises or conjectures; (3) When the inference made by the property is received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for
Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd or administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make
impossible; (4) When there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of delivery of or to return the same; (2) that there be misappropriation or
facts; (5) When the appellate court, in making its findings, went beyond the conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of
issues of the case, and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the
appellant and appellee; (6) When the judgment of the Court of Appeals is prejudice of another; and (4) there is demand by the offended party to the
premised on misapprehension of facts; (7) When the Court of Appeals failed offender.357
to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 357
different conclusion; (8) When the findings of fact are them- Treñas vs. People
_______________ Remedial Law; Evidence; An objection may be raised based on the
** Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion per ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged, or it may be
Special Order No. 1174 dated January 9, 2012. considered motu proprio by the court at any stage of the proceedings or on
* SECOND DIVISION. appeal.—The rule is settled that an objection may be raised based on the
356 ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged, or it may be
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED considered motuproprio by the court at any stage of the proceedings or on
Treñas vs. People appeal. Moreover, jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case cannot
selves conflicting; (9) When the findings of fact are conclusions without be conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or otherwise.
citation of the specific evidence on which they are based; and (10) When the That jurisdiction is conferred by the sovereign authority that organized the
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of court and is given only by law in the manner and form prescribed by law. It has
evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record. been consistently held by this Court that it is unfair to require a defendant or
Same; Criminal Procedure; Courts; Jurisdiction; Venue; A court cannot accused to undergo the ordeal and expense of a trial if the court has no
exercise jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed outside jurisdiction over the subject matter or offense or it is not the court of proper
its limited territory.—The overarching consideration in this case is the principle venue. Section 15 (a) of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
that, in criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. A court cannot exercise of 2000 provides that “[s]ubject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be
jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed outside its limited instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense
territory. In Isip v. People, 525 SCRA 735 (2007), this Court explained: The was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.” This
place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of fundamental principle is to ensure that the defendant is not compelled to move
the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. It is a fundamental to, and appear in, a different court from that of the province where the crime
rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, the offense was committed as it would cause him great inconvenience in looking for his
should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients should witnesses and other evidence in another place. This principle echoes more
have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial strongly in this case, where, due to distance constraints, coupled with his
jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to advanced age and failing health, petitioner was unable to present his defense
take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the in the charges against him.
accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an
Page 1 of 8
 Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Code of Professional Responsibility; A lawyer 1 Fukuzume v. People, G.R. No. 143647, 11 November 2005, 474 SCRA
has the duty to deliver his client’s funds or properties as they fall due or upon 570, citing Pangilinan v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 51; 321 SCRA 51
demand, his failure either to render an accounting or to return the money (if (1999).
the intended purpose of the money does not materialize) constitutes a blatant 2 Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan and concurred in by
disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.—When a Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Ricardo R. Rosario.
lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular purpose (such 359
as for filing fees, registration fees, transportation and office expenses), he VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 359
should promptly account to the client how the money was spent. If he does not Treñas vs. People
use the money for its intended purpose, he must immediately return it to the P20,000.00- Attorney’s fees,
client. His failure either to render an accounting or to return the money (if the P90,000.00- Capital Gains Tax,
intended purpose of the money does not materialize) constitutes a blatant P24,000.00- Documentary Stamp,
disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Moreover, P10,000.00- Miscellaneous Expenses.
a lawyer has the duty to deliver his client’s funds or properties as they fall due Thereafter, Elizabeth gave P150,000.00 to Hector who issued a
or upon demand. His failure to return the client’s money upon demand gives corresponding receipt dated December 22, 1999 and prepared [a] Deed of
rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the Sale with Assumption of Mortgage. Subsequently, Hector gave Elizabeth
prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in him by the Revenue Official Receipt Nos. 00084370 for P96,000.00 and 00084369 for
358 P24,000.00. However, when she consulted with the BIR, she was informed
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED that the receipts were fake. When confronted, Hector admitted to her that the
Treñas vs. People receipts were fake and that he used the P120,000.00 for his other transactions.
client. It is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional Elizabeth demanded the return of the money.
ethics; it impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves To settle his accounts, appellant Hector issued in favor of Elizabeth a Bank
punishment. of Commerce check No. 0042856 dated November 10, 2000 in the amount of
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court P120,000.00, deducting from P150,000.00 the P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
of Appeals. When the check was deposited with the PCIBank, Makati Branch, the same
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. was dishonored for the reason that the account was closed. Notwithstanding
L.M. Gangoso Law Offices for petitioner. repeated formal and verbal demands, appellant failed to pay. Thus, the instant
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent. case of Estafa was filed against him.”3
SERENO, J.: On 29 October 2001, an Information was filed by the Office of the City
Where life or liberty is affected by its proceedings, courts must keep strictly Prosecutor before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), both of Makati City. The
within the limits of the law authorizing them to take jurisdiction and to try the Information reads as follows:
case and render judgment thereon.1 “That on or about the 23rd day of December, 1999, in the City of Makati,
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to annul and set aside the Court of the above-named accused, received in trust from ELIZABETH LUCIAJA the
Appeals (CA) Decision dated 9 July 20102 and Resolution dated 4 January amount of P150,000.00 which money was given to her by her aunt Margarita
2011. Alocilja, with the express obligation on the part of the accused to use the said
Statement of the Facts and of the Case amount for expenses and fees in connection with the purchase of a parcel of
The pertinent facts, as found by the CA, are as follows: land covered by TCT No. T-109266, but the said accused, once in possession
“Sometime in December 1999, Margarita Alocilja (Margarita) wanted to buy of the said amount, with the intent to gain and abuse of confidence, did then
a house-and-lot in Iloilo City covered by TCT No. 109266. It was then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate, misapply and
mortgaged with Maybank. The bank manager Joselito Palma recommended convert to his own personal use and benefit the amount of P130,000.00 less
the appellant Hector Treñas (Hector) to private complainant Elizabeth, who attorney’s fees and the said accused failed and refused and still fails and
was an employee and niece of Margarita, for advice regarding the transfer of refuses to do so, to the damage and prejudice of complainant Elizabeth Luciaja
the title in the latter’s name. Hector informed Elizabeth that for the titling of the and Margarita Alocilja in the aforementioned amount of P130,000.00.
property in the name of her aunt Margarita, the following expenses would be _______________
incurred: 3 Rollo, p. 33; original citations omitted.
_______________ 360
Page 2 of 8
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED On 3 February 2011, petitioner filed his Petition for Review on Certiorari
Treñas vs. People before this Court, with the following assignment of errors:
CONTRARY TO LAW.”4 1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT AN ACCUSED
During arraignment on 26 April 2002, petitioner, acting as his own counsel, HAS TO PRESENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENSE OF LACK
entered a plea of “Not Guilty.” Allegedly due to old age and poor health, and OF JURISDICTION EVEN IF SUCH LACK OF JURISDICTION APPEARS IN
the fact that he lives in Iloilo City, petitioner was unable to attend the pre-trial THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION;
and trial of the case. 2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT DEMAND
On 8 January 2007, the RTC rendered a Decision5 finding petitioner guilty MADE BY A PERSON OTHER THAN THE AGGRIEVED PARTY SATISFIES
of the crime of Estafa under section 1, paragraph (b), of Article 31 5 of the THE REQUIREMENT OF DEMAND TO CONSTITUTE THE OFFENSE OF
Revised Penal Code (RPC), with the dispositive portion as follows: ESTAFA;13
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered finding On the first issue, petitioner asserts that nowhere in the evidence
accused Hector Trenas guilty of the crime of Estafa with abuse of confidence presented by the prosecution does it show that P150,000 was given to and
as penalized under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, and which offense received by petitioner in Makati City. Instead, the evidence shows that the
was committed in the manner described in the aforementioned information. As Receipt issued by petitioner for the money was dated 22 December 1999,
a consequence of this judgment, accused Hector Trenas is sentenced to suffer without any indication of the place where it was issued. Meanwhile, the Deed
a penalty of Ten (10) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor to Seventeen of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage prepared by petitioner was signed and
(17) Years and Four (4) Months of Reclusion Temporal. Moreover, he is notarized in Iloilo City, also on 22 December 1999. Petitioner claims that the
ordered to indemnify private complainant Elizabeth Luciaja the amount of only logical conclusion is that the money was actually delivered to him in Iloilo
P130,000.00 with interest at the legal rate of 12% per annum, reckoned from City, especially since his residence and office were situated there as well.
the date this case was filed until the amount is fully paid. Absent any direct proof as to the place of delivery, one must rely on the
SO ORDERED.”6 disputable presumption that things happened according to the ordi-
We note at this point that petitioner has been variably called Treñas and _______________
Trenas in the pleadings and court issuances, but for consistency, we use the 10 Id., at pp. 31-38.
name “Treñas”, under which he was accused in the Information. 11 Id., at pp. 39-40.
On 24 August 2007, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 7 which 12 Id., at pp. 3-6.
was denied by the RTC in a Resolution dated 2 July 2008.8 13 Id., at p. 14.
On 25 September 2008, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal before the 362
RTC.9 The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 32177. On 9 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
_______________ Treñas vs. People
4 Id., at p. 40. nary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life. The only time Makati
5 Id., at pp. 52-58. City was mentioned was with respect to the time when the check provided by
6 Id., at p. 58. petitioner was dishonored by Equitable-PCI Bank in its De la Rosa-Rada
7 Id., at pp. 59-66. Branch in Makati. Petitioner asserts that the prosecution witness failed to
8 Id., at pp. 67-72. allege that any of the acts material to the crime of estafa had occurred in
9 Id., at pp. 73-74. Makati City. Thus, the trial court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the case.
361 Petitioner thus argues that an accused is not required to present evidence
VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 361 to prove lack of jurisdiction, when such lack is already indicated in the
Treñas vs. People prosecution evidence.
July 2010, the CA rendered a Decision10 affirming that of the RTC. On 4 As to the second issue, petitioner claims that the amount of P150,000
August 2010, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied actually belongs to Margarita. Assuming there was misappropriation, it was
by the CA in a Resolution dated 4 January 2011.11 actually she—not Elizabeth—who was the offended party. Thus, the latter’s
On 25 January 2011, petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File demand does not satisfy the requirement of prior demand by the offended
Petition for Review on Certiorari12 before this Court. He asked for a period of party in the offense of estafa. Even assuming that the demand could have
15 days within which to file a petition for review, and the Court granted his been properly made by Elizabeth, the demand referred to the amount of
motion in a Resolution dated 9 February 2011. P120,000, instead of P150,000. Finally, there is no showing that the demand

Page 3 of 8
was actually received by petitioner. The signature on the Registry Return (3) When the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of
Receipt was not proven to be that of petitioner’s. fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
On 30 May 2011, this Court issued a Resolution directing the Office of the (4) When there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;364
Solicitor General (OSG) to file the latter’s Comment on the Petition. On 27 July 364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
2011, the OSG filed a Motion for Extension, praying for an additional period of Treñas vs. People
60 days within which to submit its Comment. This motion was granted in a (5) When the appellate court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues
Resolution dated 12 September 2011. On 23 September 2011, the OSG filed of the case, and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both
a Motion for Special Extension, requesting an additional period of five days. appellant and appellee;
On 29 September 2011, it filed its Comment on the Petition. (6) When the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on
In its Comment, the OSG asserts that the RTC did not err in convicting misapprehension of facts;
petitioner as charged. The OSG notes that petitioner does not dispute the (7) When the Court of Appeals failed to notice certain relevant facts which,
factual findings of the trial court with respect to the delivery of P150,000 to him, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;
and that there was a relationship of trust and confidence between him and (8) When the findings of fact are themselves conflicting;
Elizabeth. With respect to his claim that the Complaint should have been filed (9) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific
in Iloilo City, his claim was not supported by any piece of evidence, as he did evidence on which they are based; and
not present any. Further, petitioner is, in effect, asking the Court to weigh the (10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the
credi- absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence
363 on record.14
VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 363 In this case, the findings of fact of the trial court and the CA on the issue of
Treñas vs. People the place of commission of the offense are conclusions without any citation of
bility of the prosecution witness, Elizabeth. However, the trial court’s the specific evidence on which they are based; they are grounded on
assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight, unless conclusions and conjectures.
tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance, which is The trial court, in its Decision, ruled on the commission of the offense
not the case here. without any finding as to where it was committed:
With respect to the second issue, the OSG stresses that the defense of “no “Based on the evidence presented by the prosecution through private
valid demand” was not raised in the lower court. Nevertheless, the demand complainant Elizabeth Luciaja, the Court is convinced that accused Trenas
letter sent to Elizabeth suffices, as she is also one of the complainants alleged had committed the offense of Estafa by taking advantage of her trust so that
in the Information, as an agent of Margarita. Moreover, no proof was adduced he could misappropriate for his own personal benefit the amount entrusted to
as to the genuineness of petitioner’s signature in the Registry Return Receipt him for payment of the capital gains tax and documentary stamp tax.
of the demand letter. As clearly narrated by private complainant Luciaja, after accused Trenas
The OSG, however, submits that the Court may recommend petitioner for had obtained the amount of P150,000.00 from her, he gave her two receipts
executive clemency, in view of his advanced age and failing health. purportedly issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, for the fraudulent
The Court’s Ruling purpose of fooling her and making her believe that he had complied with his
The Petition is impressed with merit. duty to pay the aforementioned taxes. Eventually, private complainant Luciaja
Review of Factual Findings discovered that said receipts were fabricated documents.”15
While the Petition raises questions of law, the resolution of the Petition In his Motion for Reconsideration before the RTC, petitioner raised the
requires a review of the factual findings of the lower courts and the evidence argument that it had no jurisdiction over the offense charged. The
upon which they are based. _______________
As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under 14 Salcedo v. People, G.R. No. 137143, 8 December 2000, 347 SCRA
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In many instances, however, this Court has laid 499.
down exceptions to this general rule, as follows: 15 Rollo, pp. 55-56.
(1) When the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are 365
contradictory; VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 365
(2) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, Treñas vs. People
surmises or conjectures; trial court denied the motion, without citing any specific evidence upon which
its findings were based, and by relying on conjecture, thus:
Page 4 of 8
 “That the said amount was given to [Treñas] in Makati City was should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Territorial
incontrovertibly established by the prosecution. Accused Treñas, on the other jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction to
hand, never appeared in Court to present countervailing evidence. It is only take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the
now that he is suggesting another possible scenario, not based on the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an
evidence, but on mere “what ifs”. x x x offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory. Furthermore, the
Besides, if this Court were to seriously assay his assertions, the same jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the
would still not warrant a reversal of the assailed judgment. Even if the Deed of allegations in the complaint or information. And once it is so shown, the
Sale with Assumption of Mortgage was executed on 22 December 1999 in court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence
Iloilo City, it cannot preclude the fact that the P150,000.00 was delivered to adduced during the trial shows that the offense was committed
him by private complainant Luciaja in Makati City the following day. His somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of
reasoning the money must have been delivered to him in Iloilo City because it jurisdiction.” (Emphasis supplied.)
was to be used for paying the taxes with the BIR office in that city does not In a criminal case, the prosecution must not only prove that the offense
inspire concurrence. The records show that he did not even pay the taxes was committed, it must also prove the identity of the accused and the fact that
because the BIR receipts he gave to private complainant were fake the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the court.
documents. Thus, his argumentation in this regard is too specious to consider In Fukuzume v. People,19 this Court dismissed a Complaint for estafa,
favorably.”16 wherein the prosecution failed to prove that the essential elements of the
For its part, the CA ruled on the issue of the trial court’s jurisdiction in this offense took place within the trial court’s jurisdiction. The Court ruled:
wise: _______________
“It is a settled jurisprudence that the court will not entertain evidence unless 18 G.R. No. 170298, 26 June 2007, 525 SCRA 735.
it is offered in evidence. It bears emphasis that Hector did not comment on the 19 Supra note 1.
formal offer of prosecution’s evidence nor present any evidence on his behalf. 367
He failed to substantiate his allegations that he had received the amount of VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 367
P150,000.00 in Iloilo City. Hence, Hector’s allegations cannot be given Treñas vs. People
evidentiary weight. “More importantly, we find nothing in the direct or cross-examination of Yu
Absent any showing of a fact or circumstance of weight and influence which to establish that he gave any money to Fukuzume or transacted business with
would appear to have been overlooked and, if considered, could affect the him with respect to the subject aluminum scrap wires inside or within the
outcome of the case, the factual findings and assessment on the credibility of premises of the Intercontinental Hotel in Makati, or anywhere in Makati for that
a witness made by the trial court remain binding on appellate tribunal. They matter. Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction. x x x
are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on review.” 17 In the present case, the criminal information against Fukuzume was filed
_______________ with and tried by the RTC of Makati. He was charged with estafa as defined
16 Id., at p. 71. under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of
17 Id., at pp. 36-37. which are as follows: x x x
366 The crime was alleged in the Information as having been committed
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED in Makati. However, aside from the sworn statement executed by Yu on
Treñas vs. People April 19, 1994, the prosecution presented no other evidence, testimonial
The instant case is thus an exception allowing a review of the factual or documentary, to corroborate Yu’s sworn statement or to prove that
findings of the lower courts. any of the above-enumerated elements of the offense charged was
Jurisdiction of the Trial Court committed in Makati. Indeed, the prosecution failed to establish that any of
The overarching consideration in this case is the principle that, in criminal the subsequent payments made by Yu in the amounts of P50,000.00 on July
cases, venue is jurisdictional. A court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a 12, 1991, P20,000.00 on July 22, 1991, P50,000.00 on October 14, 1991 and
person charged with an offense committed outside its limited territory. In Isip P170,000.00 on October 18, 1991 was given in Makati. Neither was there proof
v. People,18 this Court explained: to show that the certifications purporting to prove that NAPOCOR has in its
“The place where the crime was committed determines not only the custody the subject aluminum scrap wires and that Fukuzume is authorized by
venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. It is a Furukawa to sell the same were given by Fukuzume to Yu in Makati. On the
fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases, contrary, the testimony of Yu established that all the elements of the offense
the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients charged had been committed in Parañaque, to wit: that on July 12, 1991, Yu
Page 5 of 8
went to the house of Fukuzume in Parañaque; that with the intention of selling 6. THAT in view of my persistent follow-ups, ATTY. HECTOR TREÑAS
the subject aluminum scrap wires, the latter pretended that he is a issued to me a check for refund of the sum given to him less the
representative of Furukawa who is authorized to sell the said scrap wires; that attorney’s fee of P20,000.00 and the sum of P10,000.00 allegedly paid
based on the false pretense of Fukuzume, Yu agreed to buy the subject to BIR or in the net sum of P120,000.00. x x x
aluminum scrap wires; that Yu paid Fukuzume the initial amount of _______________
P50,000.00; that as a result, Yu suffered damage. Stated differently, the crime 20 Rollo, p. 40.
of estafa, as defined and penalized under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the 369
Revised Penal Code, was consummated when Yu and Fukuzume met at the VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 369
latter’s house in Parañaque and, by falsely pretending to sell aluminum scrap Treñas vs. People
wires, Fukuzume was able to induce Yu to part with his money. 7. THAT when said check was deposited at EQUITABLE PCI BANK dela
xxx Rosa-Rada Branch at Makati City, the same was dishonored by the
From the foregoing, it is evident that the prosecution failed to prove that drawee bank for the reason: ACCOUNT CLOSED. x x x21
Fukuzume committed the crime of estafa in Makati or that any of the Aside from the lone allegation in the Information, no other evidence was
essential ingredients of the offense took place in the presented by the prosecution to prove that the offense or any of its elements
368 was committed in Makati City.
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Under Article 315, par. 1 (b) of the RPC, the elements of estafa are as
Treñas vs. People follows: (1) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the
said city. Hence, the judgment of the trial court convicting Fukuzume of offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other
the crime of estafa should be set aside for want of jurisdiction, without obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same; (2) that
prejudice, however, to the filing of appropriate charges with the court of there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the
competent jurisdiction.” (Emphasis supplied) offender, or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation
In this case, the prosecution failed to show that the offense of estafa under or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) there is demand
Section 1, paragraph (b) of Article 315 of the RPC was committed within the by the offended party to the offender.22
jurisdiction of the RTC of Makati City. There is nothing in the documentary evidence offered by the
That the offense was committed in Makati City was alleged in the prosecution23 that points to where the offense, or any of its elements, was
information as follows: committed. A review of the testimony of Elizabeth also shows that there was
“That on or about the 23rd day of December, 1999, in the City of Makati, no mention of the place where the offense was allegedly committed:
Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Q After the manager of Maybank referred Atty. Treñas to you, what
Court, the above-named accused, received in trust from ELIZABETH happened next?
LUCIAJA the amount of P150,000.00 x x x.” (Emphasis supplied.)20 A We have met and he explained to the expenses and what we will have
Ordinarily, this statement would have been sufficient to vest jurisdiction in to… and she will work for the Deed of Sale.
the RTC of Makati. However, the Affidavit of Complaint executed by Elizabeth Q And did he quote any amount when you got to the expenses?
does not contain any allegation as to where the offense was committed. It A Yes. I gave him ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND.
provides in part: Q What was the amount quoted to you?
4. THAT on 23 December 1999, [Elizabeth] personally entrusted to ATTY. A ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND.
HECTOR TREÑAS the sum of P150,000.00 to be expended as agreed Q Did he give a breakdown of this ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND?
and ATTY. HECTOR TREÑAS issued to me a receipt, a photo copy of A Yes, sir.
which is hereto attached as Annex “B”, _______________
5. THAT despite my several follow-ups with ATTY. HECTOR TREÑAS, the 21 Id., at pp. 41-42.
latter failed to transfer the title of aforesaid property to MRS. 22 Salazar v. People of the Philippines, 480 Phil. 444; 437 SCRA 41 (2004).
MARGARITA ALOCILJA. He also failed to pay the capital gains tax, 23 Records, pp. 260-262.
documentary stamps and BIR-related expenses. What ATTY. HECTOR 370
TREÑAS accomplished was only the preparation of the Deed of Sale 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
covering aforesaid property. A copy of said Deed of Sale is hereto Treñas vs. People
attached as Annex “C”, Q And what is the breakdown of this ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND?

Page 6 of 8
 A TWENTY THOUSAND is for his Attorney’s fee, NINETY THOUSAND is This fundamental principle is to ensure that the defendant is not compelled to
for the capital gain tax TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND is intended for move to, and appear in, a different court from that of the province where the
documentary sum (sic) and TEN THOUSAND PESOS is for other crime was committed as it would cause him great inconvenience in looking for
expenses for BIR. his witnesses and other evidence in another place.28 This principle echoes
Q And did you give him this ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND? more strongly in this case, where, due to distance constraints, coupled with his
A Yes, sir. advanced age and failing health, petitioner was unable to present his defense
Q Did he issue a receipt? in the charges against him.
A Yes, sir. There being no showing that the offense was committed within Makati, the
Q If shown to you a receipt issued by Atty. Treñas for this ONE HUNDRED RTC of that city has no jurisdiction over the case.29
FIFTY THOUSAND, will you be able to identify it? As such, there is no more need to discuss the other issue raised by
A Yes, sir. petitioner.
Q I am showing to you a document, madam witness, already identified _______________
during the pre-trial as exhibit “B”. This appears to be a receipt dated 25 Supra; see also Rules of Court, Rule 118, Sec. 9 in relation to Sec. 3(b).
December 22, 1999. Will you please go over this document and inform 26 Id.
this court what relation has this to the receipt which you said Atty. 27 Buaya v. Polo, 251 Phil. 422; 169 SCRA 471 (1989); Javier v.
Treñas issued to you? Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 147026-27, 11 September 2009, 599 SCRA 324.
A This is the receipt issued by Atty. Hector Treñas. 28 Campanano v. Datuin, G.R. No. 172142, 17 October 2007, 536 SCRA
Q Now, after the amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND was given 471.
to Atty. Treñas by you, what happened next? 29 See Uy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119000, 28 July 1997, 276 SCRA
A We made several follow-ups but he failed to do his job.24 367.
Although the prosecution alleged that the check issued by petitioner was 372
dishonored in a bank in Makati, such dishonor is not an element of the offense 372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
of estafa under Article 315, par. 1 (b) of the RPC. Treñas vs. People
Indeed, other than the lone allegation in the information, there is nothing in At this juncture, this Court sees it fit to note that the Code of Professional
the prosecution evidence which even mentions that any of the elements of the Responsibility strongly militates against the petitioner’s conduct in handling the
offense were committed in Makati. The rule is settled that an objection may be funds of his client. Rules 16.01 and 16.02 of the Code provides:
raised based on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the offense Rule 16.01—A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or
charged, or it may be considered motu proprio by the court at any stage of the received for or from the client.
proceedings or on Rule 16.02—A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and
_______________ apart from his own and those others kept by him.
24 Records, pp. 352-353. When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular
371 purpose (such as for filing fees, registration fees, transportation and office
VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 371 expenses), he should promptly account to the client how the money was
Treñas vs. People spent.30If he does not use the money for its intended purpose, he must
appeal.25 Moreover, jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case immediately return it to the client. His failure either to render an accounting or
cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or to return the money (if the intended purpose of the money does not materialize)
otherwise. That jurisdiction is conferred by the sovereign authority that constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional
organized the court and is given only by law in the manner and form prescribed Responsibility.31
by law.26 Moreover, a lawyer has the duty to deliver his client’s funds or properties
It has been consistently held by this Court that it is unfair to require a as they fall due or upon demand.32 His failure to return the client’s money upon
defendant or accused to undergo the ordeal and expense of a trial if the court demand gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or offense or it is not the court of own use to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in him by the
proper venue.27 Section 15 (a) of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal client.33 It is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional
Procedure of 2000 provides that “[s]ubject to existing laws, the criminal action ethics; it impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves
shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where punishment.34
the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.”
Page 7 of 8
 In Cuizon v. Macalino,35 this Court ruled that the issuance of checks which
were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account
indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and confi-
_______________
30 Belleza v. Macasa, A.C. No. 7815, 23 July 2009, 593 SCRA 549.
31 Id.
32 Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 16.03; Barnachea v.
Quiocho, A.C. No. 5925, 11March 2003, 399 SCRA 1.
33 Penticostes v. Ibañez, 363 Phil. 624; 304 SCRA 281 (1999).
34 Supra note 30.
35 A.C. No. 4334, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 484.
373
VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 373
Treñas vs. People
dence reposed on him, shows lack of personal honesty and good moral
character as to render him unworthy of public confidence, and constitutes a
ground for disciplinary action.
This case is thus referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against petitioner. In any case, should
there be a finding that petitioner has failed to account for the funds received
by him in trust, the recommendation should include an order to immediately
return the amount of P130,000 to his client, with the appropriate rate of interest
from the time of demand until full payment.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 9 July 2010
and the Resolution dated 4 January 2011 issued by the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR No. 32177 are SET ASIDE on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
on the part of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 137, Makati City. Criminal Case
No. 01-2409 is DISMISSED without prejudice. This case is REFERRED to the
IBP Board of Governors for investigation and recommendation pursuant to
Section 1 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Perez, Reyes and Perlas-Bernabe,** JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution set aside.
Note.—In order for the courts to acquire jurisdiction in criminal cases, the
offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients
should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. If the
evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was committed
somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.
(Evangelista vs. People, 620 SCRA 134 [2010])
——o0o——
_______________
** Designated as Acting Member of the Second Division vice Associate
Justice Arturo D. Brion per Special Order No. 1174 dated January 9, 2012.
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 8 of 8