TREÑAS v PEOPLE
Without any proof as to the place of delivery, one
FACTS:
In December 1999, Margarita wanted to buy a house-and-lot in Iloilo. It was
then mortgaged with Maybank. The bank manager, Joselito Palma,
recommended the appellant Hector to private complainant Elizabeth, who
was an employee and niece of Margarita, regarding advice about the
transfer of the title in the latter’s name. Hector told Elizabeth that for the
titling of the property in the name of Margarita, it would cost P144,000
(attorney’s fees, capital gains tax, documentary stamp, misc. expenses).
Elizabeth gave P150,000 to Hector, who issued a corresponding receipt and
prepared a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage. He then gave
Elizabeth two Revenue Official Receipts (P96k and P24k). However, the
BIR informed Elizabeth that the receipts were fake. Hector admitted that the
receipts were fake and that he used the P120k for his other transactions.
Elizabeth demanded the money back.
Appellant Hector issued a Bank of Commerce check for P120k, deducting
P30k (attorney’s fees) from the P150k. When the check was deposited with
PCIBank, Makati, it was dishonored because the account was closed. The
appellant failed to pay.
The petitioner, acting as his own counsel, pleaded “not guity. He was
unable to attend his own pre-trial and trial due to his old age, poor health,
and the fact that he lives in Iloilo. He filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
but was denied by the RTC. He then filed a Notice of Appeal before the
RTC.
The CA affirmed the RTC.
The petitioner argues that nowhere in the evidence by the prosecution does
it show hat P150k was given and received by petitioner in Makati. Instead,
the evidence stated tha the Receipt issued by the petitioner for the money
was dated December 22nd, 1999 wiohut any indication of the place it was
issued. The Deed of Sale done by the petitioner was signed and notarized in
Iloilo, also on December 22nd, 1999.
The petitioner claims that the only logical conclusion is that the money was
actually delivered to him in Iloilo, considering that his residence and office
were situated there.
should rely on the disputable presumption that things happened according to
the ordinary course of nature. The only time Makati was mentioned was
with respect to the time when the check was dishonored by Equitable in its
De la Rosa-Rada Branch in Makati. It states that the prosecution witness
failed to allege that any of the acts material to estafa had occurred in
Makati. Thus, the trial court failed to acquire jurisdiction. The petitioner
argues that an accused is not required to present evidence to prove lack of
jurisdiction, when such lack is already indiciated in the prosecution
evidence.
ISSUE/S:
The CA erred in ruling that an accused has to present evidence in support of
the defense of lack of jurisdiction even if such lack appears in the evidence
of the prosecution?
The CA erred in ruling that demand made by a person other than the
aggrieved satisfied the requirement of demand to constitute estafa?
RULING:
In Isip v People, the place where the crime was committed determines not
only the venue of the ation, but is an essential element of jurisdiction. For
jurisdiction to be acquired by courts, the offense should have been
committed or any one of its essential ingredients should have taken place
within the court’s territorial jurisdiction. Territorial jurisdiction is the
territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the
offense. It cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense
allegedly committed outside. The jurisdiction of a court over the
criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or
information, and once it is shown, the court may validly take cognizance.
However, if the evidence adduced during trial shows that the offense was
committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss for want of
jurisdiction. The prosecution must not only prove tha the offense was
committed, it must also prove the identity of the accused and the fact that
the offense was done within the court’s jurisdiction.
Here, the prosecution failed to show that estafa was committed within the
jurisdiction of the Makati RTC. The Information stated that, “… in
Makati… and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court… accused
received in trust from ELIZABETH LUCIAJA… P150,000.” This would
have been fine and enough to vest jurisdiction, however, the Affidavit of
Complaint by Elizabeth does not contain any allegation as to where the
offense was committed.

Aside from the Information, no other evidence was presented by the

prosecution to prove that estafa or any of its elements were committed in
Makati. There was nothing in the documentary evidence offered by the
prosecution that points to where the offense, or any of its elements, was
committed. Elizabeth’s testimony had no mention of the place wehre the
offense was allegedly committed.

Even though the prosecution alleged tha the check was dishonored in a
Makati bank, such dishonor is not an element of estafa.

An objection may be raised on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction
over the offense or it may be considered motu proprio by the court at any
stage of the proceedings or on appeal. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or
otherwise. It is conferred by the sovereign authority that organized the court
and is given only by law in the manner and form prescribed by law.

It is unfair to require a defendant to undergo a trial if the court has no

jurisdiction over the subject matter or if its not the court of proper venue.

Section 15a, Rule 110 states that the criminal action shall be instituted and
tried in the court of the municipality/territory where the crime was done or
where any of its essential ingredients occurred. This fundamental principle
is to ensure that the defendant is not compelled to move to, and appear in, a
different court from that of the province were the crime was done, as it
would cause him great inconvenience. This echoes more strongly in this
case where due to distance, old age, and health, the petitioner was unable to
present his defense.

The Makati RTC has no jurisdiction over the case because there was no
showing that the offense was committed within Makati.