4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

G.R. No. 195002. January 25, 2012.*

HECTOR TREÑAS, petitioner,  vs.  PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

respondent.

Remedial Law; Appeals; Petition for Review on Certiorari; As a rule, only questions
of law may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
Exceptions.—As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In many instances, however, this Court has laid
down exceptions to this general rule, as follows: (1) When the factual findings of the
Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory; (2) When the conclusion is a
finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (3) When the
inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken,
absurd or impossible; (4) When there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of
facts; (5) When the appellate court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the
case, and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(6) When the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on misapprehension of facts;
(7) When the Court of Appeals failed to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion; (8) When the findings of fact are them-

_______________
**  Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion per Special Order No. 1174 dated
January 9, 2012.
* SECOND DIVISION.

356

356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Treñas vs. People

selves conflicting; (9) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of
the specific evidence on which they are based; and (10) When the findings of fact of the
Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are
contradicted by the evidence on record.
Same; Criminal Procedure; Courts; Jurisdiction; Venue; A court cannot exercise
jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed outside its limited territory.
—The overarching consideration in this case is the principle that, in criminal cases,
venue is jurisdictional. A court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a person charged with
an offense committed outside its limited territory. In  Isip v. People, 525 SCRA 735
(2007), this Court explained:  The place where the crime was committed
determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of
jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts 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.
Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has jurisdiction
to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the accused.
Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense allegedly
committed outside of that limited territory. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court
over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or
information. And once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the
case. However, 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. In a criminal case, the prosecution must not only prove that the offense
was committed, it must also prove the identity of the accused and the fact that the
offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the court.
Criminal Law; Estafa; Elements of Estafa under Article 315, Paragraph 1 (b) of the
Revised Penal Code.—Under Article 315, par. 1 (b) of the RPC, the elements
of estafa are as follows: (1) that money, goods or other personal property is received by
the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017139279b2e9f749820003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same; (2) that there be
misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on
his part of such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the
prejudice of another; and (4) there is demand by the offended party to the offender.
357

VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 357

Treñas vs. People

Remedial Law; Evidence; An objection may be raised based on the ground that the
court lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged, or it may be considered motu proprio by
the court at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal.—The rule is settled that an
objection may be raised based on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the
offense charged, or it may be considered motuproprio by the court at any stage of the
proceedings or on appeal. Moreover, jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal
case cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or otherwise.
That jurisdiction 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 has been consistently
held by this Court that it is unfair to require a defendant or accused to undergo the
ordeal and expense of a trial if the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or
offense or it is not the court of proper venue. Section 15 (a) of Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure of 2000 provides that “[s]ubject to existing laws, the
criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory
where the offense was committed 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 where the crime was
committed as it would cause him great inconvenience in looking for his witnesses and
other evidence in another place. This principle echoes more strongly in this case, where,
due to distance constraints, coupled with his advanced age and failing health, petitioner
was unable to present his defense in the charges against him.
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Code of Professional Responsibility; A lawyer has the duty to
deliver his client’s funds or properties as they fall due or upon demand, his failure either
to render an accounting or to return the money (if the intended purpose of the money does
not materialize) constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.—When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a
particular purpose (such as for filing fees, registration fees, transportation and office
expenses), he should promptly account to the client how the money was spent. If he does
not use the money for its intended purpose, he must immediately return it to the client.
His failure either to render an accounting or to return the money (if the intended
purpose of the money does not materialize) constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Moreover, a lawyer has the duty to deliver his
client’s funds or properties as they fall due or upon demand. His failure to return the
client’s money upon demand gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated
it for his own use to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in him by the

358

358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Treñas vs. People

client. It is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics; it

impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  L.M. Gangoso Law Offices for petitioner.
  Office of the Solicitor General for respondent.

SERENO, J.:
Where life or liberty is affected by its proceedings, courts must keep strictly
within the limits of the law authorizing them to take jurisdiction and to try the
case and render judgment thereon.1

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017139279b2e9f749820003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised

Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to annul and set aside the Court of Appeals
(CA) Decision dated 9 July 20102 and Resolution dated 4 January 2011.

Statement of the Facts and of the Case

The pertinent facts, as found by the CA, are as follows:

“Sometime in December 1999, Margarita Alocilja (Margarita) wanted to buy a house-
and-lot in Iloilo City covered by TCT No. 109266. It was then mortgaged with Maybank.
The bank manager Joselito Palma recommended the appellant Hector Treñas (Hector)
to private complainant Elizabeth, who was an employee and niece of Margarita, for
advice regarding the transfer of the title in the latter’s name. Hector informed Elizabeth
that for the titling of the property in the name of her aunt Margarita, the following
expenses would be incurred:

_______________
1 Fukuzume v. People, G.R. No. 143647, 11 November 2005, 474 SCRA 570, citing Pangilinan v. Court of
Appeals, 321 SCRA 51; 321 SCRA 51 (1999).
2  Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan and concurred in by Associate Justices Hakim S.
Abdulwahid and Ricardo R. Rosario.

359

VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 359

Treñas vs. People

P20,000.00-         Attorney’s fees,

       P90,000.00-         Capital Gains Tax,
       P24,000.00-         Documentary Stamp,
       P10,000.00-         Miscellaneous Expenses.
Thereafter, Elizabeth gave P150,000.00 to Hector who issued a corresponding receipt
dated December 22, 1999 and prepared [a] Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage.
Subsequently, Hector gave Elizabeth Revenue Official Receipt Nos. 00084370 for
P96,000.00 and 00084369 for P24,000.00. However, when she consulted with the BIR,
she was informed that the receipts were fake. When confronted, Hector admitted to her
that the receipts were fake and that he used the P120,000.00 for his other transactions.
Elizabeth demanded the return of the money.
To settle his accounts, appellant Hector issued in favor of Elizabeth a Bank of
Commerce check No. 0042856 dated November 10, 2000 in the amount of P120,000.00,
deducting from P150,000.00 the P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees. When the check was
deposited with the PCIBank, Makati Branch, the same was dishonored for the reason
that the account was closed. Notwithstanding repeated formal and verbal demands,
appellant failed to pay. Thus, the instant case of Estafa was filed against him.”3

On 29 October 2001, an Information was filed by the Office of the City

Prosecutor before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), both of Makati City. The
Information reads as follows:
“That on or about the 23rd day of December, 1999, in the City of Makati, Metro
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, received in trust from ELIZABETH LUCIAJA the amount of
P150,000.00 which money was given to her by her aunt Margarita Alocilja, with the
express obligation on the part of the accused to use the said amount for expenses and
fees in connection with the purchase of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-109266,
but the said accused, once in possession of the said amount, with the intent to gain and
abuse of confidence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
misappropriate, misapply and convert to his own personal use and benefit the amount of
P130,000.00 less attorney’s fees and the said accused failed and refused and still fails
and refuses to do so, to the damage and prejudice of complainant Elizabeth Luciaja and
Margarita Alocilja in the aforementioned amount of P130,000.00.

_______________
3 Rollo, p. 33; original citations omitted.

360

360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Treñas vs. People

CONTRARY TO LAW.”4

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017139279b2e9f749820003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

During arraignment on 26 April 2002, petitioner, acting as his own counsel,

entered a plea of “Not Guilty.” Allegedly due to old age and poor health, and the
fact that he lives in Iloilo City, petitioner was unable to attend the pre-trial and
trial of the case.
On 8 January 2007, the RTC rendered a Decision5 finding petitioner guilty
of the crime of Estafa under section 1, paragraph (b), of Article 315  of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), with the dispositive portion as follows:
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered finding accused
Hector Trenas guilty of the crime of Estafa with abuse of confidence as penalized under
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, and which offense was committed in the manner
described in the aforementioned information. As a consequence of this judgment,
accused Hector Trenas is sentenced to suffer a penalty of Ten (10) Years and One (1)
Day of  Prision Mayor  to Seventeen (17) Years and Four (4) Months of  Reclusion
Temporal. Moreover, he is ordered to indemnify private complainant Elizabeth Luciaja
the amount of P130,000.00 with interest at the legal rate of 12% per annum, reckoned
from the date this case was filed until the amount is fully paid.
SO ORDERED.”6

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
name “Treñas”, under which he was accused in the Information.
On 24 August 2007, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,7  which
was denied by the RTC in a Resolution dated 2 July 2008.8
On 25 September 2008, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal before the
RTC.9 The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 32177. On 9

_______________
4 Id., at p. 40.
5 Id., at pp. 52-58.
6 Id., at p. 58.
7  Id., at pp. 59-66.
8  Id., at pp. 67-72.
9  Id., at pp. 73-74.

361

VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 361

Treñas vs. People

July 2010, the CA rendered a Decision10  affirming that of the RTC. On 4

August 2010, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied
by the CA in a Resolution dated 4 January 2011.11
On 25 January 2011, petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File
Petition for Review on Certiorari12 before this Court. He asked for a period of
15 days within which to file a petition for review, and the Court granted his
motion in a Resolution dated 9 February 2011.
On 3 February 2011, petitioner filed his Petition for Review on Certiorari
before this Court, with the following assignment of errors:
1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT AN ACCUSED HAS TO
PRESENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF
JURISDICTION EVEN IF SUCH LACK OF JURISDICTION APPEARS IN THE
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION;
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT DEMAND MADE BY A
PERSON OTHER THAN THE AGGRIEVED PARTY SATISFIES THE
REQUIREMENT OF DEMAND TO CONSTITUTE THE OFFENSE OF ESTAFA;13

On the first issue, petitioner asserts that nowhere in the evidence presented

by the prosecution does it show that P150,000 was given to and received by
petitioner in Makati City. Instead, the evidence shows that the Receipt issued
by petitioner for the money was dated 22 December 1999, without any
indication of the place where it was issued. Meanwhile, the Deed of Sale with
Assumption of Mortgage prepared by petitioner was signed and notarized in
Iloilo City, also on 22 December 1999. Petitioner claims that the only logical
conclusion is that the money was actually delivered to him in Iloilo City,
especially since his residence and office were situated there as well. Absent any
direct proof as to the place of delivery, one must rely on the disputable
presumption that things happened according to the ordi-
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017139279b2e9f749820003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

_______________
10 Id., at pp. 31-38.
11 Id., at pp. 39-40.
12 Id., at pp. 3-6.
13 Id., at p. 14.

362

362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Treñas vs. People

nary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life. The only time Makati
City was mentioned was with respect to the time when the check provided by
petitioner was dishonored by Equitable-PCI Bank in its De la Rosa-Rada
Branch in Makati. Petitioner asserts that the prosecution witness failed to
allege that any of the acts material to the crime of  estafa  had occurred in
Makati City. Thus, the trial court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the case.
Petitioner thus argues that an accused is not required to present evidence to
prove lack of jurisdiction, when such lack is already indicated in the
prosecution evidence.
As to the  second  issue, petitioner claims that the amount of P150,000
actually belongs to Margarita. Assuming there was misappropriation, it was
actually she—not Elizabeth—who was the offended party. Thus, the latter’s
demand does not satisfy the requirement of prior demand by the offended party
in the offense of  estafa. Even assuming that the demand could have been
properly made by Elizabeth, the demand referred to the amount of P120,000,
instead of P150,000. Finally, there is no showing that the demand was actually
received by petitioner. The signature on the Registry Return Receipt was not
proven to be that of petitioner’s.
On 30 May 2011, this Court issued a Resolution directing the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) to file the latter’s Comment on the Petition. On 27 July
2011, the OSG filed a Motion for Extension, praying for an additional period of
60 days within which to submit its Comment. This motion was granted in a
Resolution dated 12 September 2011. On 23 September 2011, the OSG filed a
Motion for Special Extension, requesting an additional period of five days. On
29 September 2011, it filed its Comment on the Petition.
In its Comment, the OSG asserts that the RTC did not err in convicting
petitioner as charged. The OSG notes that petitioner does not dispute the
factual findings of the trial court with respect to the delivery of P150,000 to
him, and that there was a relationship of trust and confidence between him and
Elizabeth. With respect to his claim that the Complaint should have been filed
in Iloilo City, his claim was not supported by any piece of evidence, as he did
not present any. Further, petitioner is, in effect, asking the Court to weigh the
credi-
363

VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 363

Treñas vs. People

bility of the prosecution witness, Elizabeth. However, the trial court’s

assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight, unless
tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance, which is
not the case here.
With respect to the second issue, the OSG stresses that the defense of “no
valid demand” was not raised in the lower court. Nevertheless, the demand
letter sent to Elizabeth suffices, as she is also one of the complainants alleged
in the Information, as an agent of Margarita. Moreover, no proof was adduced
as to the genuineness of petitioner’s signature in the Registry Return Receipt of
the demand letter.
The OSG, however, submits that the Court may recommend petitioner for
executive clemency, in view of his advanced age and failing health.

The Court’s Ruling

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017139279b2e9f749820003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

The Petition is impressed with merit.

Review of Factual Findings
While the Petition raises questions of law, the resolution of the Petition
requires a review of the factual findings of the lower courts and the evidence
upon which they are based.
As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In many instances, however, this Court has laid
down exceptions to this general rule, as follows:
(1) When the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory;
(2) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
(3) When the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(4) When there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;
364

364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Treñas vs. People

(5) When the appellate court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case, and such
findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(6) When the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on misapprehension of facts;
(7) When the Court of Appeals failed to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered,
would justify a different conclusion;
(8) When the findings of fact are themselves conflicting;
(9) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which
they are based; and
(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence
but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.14

In this case, the findings of fact of the trial court and the CA on the issue of
the place of commission of the offense are conclusions without any citation of
the specific evidence on which they are based; they are grounded on conclusions
and conjectures.
The trial court, in its Decision, ruled on the commission of the offense
without any finding as to where it was committed:
“Based on the evidence presented by the prosecution through private complainant
Elizabeth Luciaja, the Court is convinced that accused Trenas had committed the
offense of Estafa by taking advantage of her trust so that he could misappropriate for
his own personal benefit the amount entrusted to him for payment of the capital gains
tax and documentary stamp tax.
As clearly narrated by private complainant Luciaja, after accused Trenas had
obtained the amount of P150,000.00 from her, he gave her two receipts purportedly
issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, for the fraudulent purpose of fooling her and
making her believe that he had complied with his duty to pay the aforementioned taxes.
Eventually, private complainant Luciaja discovered that said receipts were fabricated
documents.”15

In his Motion for Reconsideration before the RTC, petitioner raised the
argument that it had no jurisdiction over the offense charged. The

_______________
14 Salcedo v. People, G.R. No. 137143, 8 December 2000, 347 SCRA 499.
15 Rollo, pp. 55-56.

365

VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 365

Treñas vs. People

trial court denied the motion, without citing any specific evidence upon which
its findings were based, and by relying on conjecture, thus:
“That the said amount was given to [Treñas] in Makati City was incontrovertibly
established by the prosecution. Accused Treñas, on the other hand, never appeared in
Court to present countervailing evidence. It is only now that he is suggesting another
possible scenario, not based on the evidence, but on mere “what ifs”. x x x

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017139279b2e9f749820003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

Besides, if this Court were to seriously assay his assertions, the same would still not
warrant a reversal of the assailed judgment. Even if the Deed of Sale with Assumption
of Mortgage was executed on 22 December 1999 in Iloilo City, it cannot preclude the fact
that the P150,000.00 was delivered to him by private complainant Luciaja in Makati
City the following day. His reasoning the money must have been delivered to him in
Iloilo City because it was to be used for paying the taxes with the BIR office in that city
does not inspire concurrence. The records show that he did not even pay the taxes
because the BIR receipts he gave to private complainant were fake documents. Thus, his
argumentation in this regard is too specious to consider favorably.”16

For its part, the CA ruled on the issue of the trial court’s jurisdiction in this
wise:
“It is a settled jurisprudence that the court will not entertain evidence unless it is
offered in evidence. It bears emphasis that Hector did not comment on the formal offer
of prosecution’s evidence nor present any evidence on his behalf. He failed to
substantiate his allegations that he had received the amount of P150,000.00 in Iloilo
City. Hence, Hector’s allegations cannot be given evidentiary weight.
Absent any showing of a fact or circumstance of weight and influence which would
appear to have been overlooked and, if considered, could affect the outcome of the case,
the factual findings and assessment on the credibility of a witness made by the trial
court remain binding on appellate tribunal. They are entitled to great weight and
respect and will not be disturbed on review.”17

_______________
16 Id., at p. 71.
17 Id., at pp. 36-37.

366

366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Treñas vs. People

The instant case is thus an exception allowing a review of the factual

findings of the lower courts.
Jurisdiction of the Trial Court
The overarching consideration in this case is the principle that, in criminal
cases, venue is jurisdictional. A court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a person
charged with an offense committed outside its limited territory. In  Isip v.
People,18 this Court explained:
“The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue
of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. It is a fundamental rule
that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts 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. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the
territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense
allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a
person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory.
Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by
the allegations in the complaint or information. And once it is so shown, the court
may validly take cognizance of the case. However, 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.” (Emphasis supplied.)

In a criminal case, the prosecution must not only prove that the offense was
committed, it must also prove the identity of the accused and the fact that the
offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the court.
In  Fukuzume v. People,19  this Court dismissed a Complaint for  estafa,
wherein the prosecution failed to prove that the essential elements of the
offense took place within the trial court’s jurisdiction. The Court ruled:

_______________
18 G.R. No. 170298, 26 June 2007, 525 SCRA 735.
19 Supra note 1.

367

VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 367

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017139279b2e9f749820003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

Treñas vs. People

“More importantly, we find nothing in the direct or cross-examination of Yu to

establish that he gave any money to Fukuzume or transacted business with him with
respect to the subject aluminum scrap wires inside or within the premises of the
Intercontinental Hotel in Makati, or anywhere in Makati for that matter. Venue in
criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction. x x x
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 under Article 315,
paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of which are as follows: x x x
The crime was alleged in the Information as having been committed in
Makati. However, aside from the sworn statement  executed by Yu on April 19,
1994,  the prosecution presented no other evidence, testimonial or
documentary, to corroborate Yu’s sworn statement or to prove that any of the
above-enumerated elements of the offense charged was committed in Makati.
Indeed, the prosecution failed to establish that any of the subsequent payments made by
Yu in the amounts of P50,000.00 on July 12, 1991, P20,000.00 on July 22, 1991,
P50,000.00 on October 14, 1991 and P170,000.00 on October 18, 1991 was given in
Makati. Neither was there proof to show that the certifications purporting to prove that
NAPOCOR has in its custody the subject aluminum scrap wires and that Fukuzume is
authorized by Furukawa to sell the same were given by Fukuzume to Yu in Makati. On
the contrary, the testimony of Yu established that all the elements of the offense
charged had been committed in Parañaque, to wit: that on July 12, 1991, Yu went to the
house of Fukuzume in Parañaque; that with the intention of selling the subject
aluminum scrap wires, the latter pretended that he is a representative of Furukawa
who is authorized to sell the said scrap wires; that based on the false pretense of
Fukuzume, Yu agreed to buy the subject 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 of estafa, as defined and penalized under Article 315, paragraph
2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, was consummated when Yu and Fukuzume met at the
latter’s house in Parañaque and, by falsely pretending to sell aluminum scrap wires,
Fukuzume was able to induce Yu to part with his money.
x x x
From the foregoing, it is evident that  the prosecution failed to prove that
Fukuzume committed the crime of estafa in Makati or that any of the essential
ingredients of the offense took place in the
368

368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Treñas vs. People

said city. Hence, the judgment of the trial court convicting Fukuzume of the
crime of estafa should be set aside for want of jurisdiction, without prejudice,
however, to the filing of appropriate charges with the court of competent jurisdiction.”
(Emphasis supplied)

In this case, the prosecution failed to show that the offense of estafa  under
Section 1, paragraph (b) of Article 315 of the RPC was committed within the
jurisdiction of the RTC of Makati City.
That the offense was committed in Makati City was alleged in the
information as follows:
“That on or about the 23rd day of December, 1999,  in the City of Makati, Metro
Manila, Philippines and  within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, received in trust from ELIZABETH LUCIAJA the amount of
P150,000.00 x x x.” (Emphasis supplied.)20

Ordinarily, this statement would have been sufficient to vest jurisdiction in

the RTC of Makati. However, the Affidavit of Complaint executed by Elizabeth
does not contain any allegation as to where the offense was committed. It
provides in part:
4. THAT on 23 December 1999, [Elizabeth] personally entrusted to ATTY. HECTOR TREÑAS
the sum of P150,000.00 to be expended as agreed and ATTY. HECTOR TREÑAS issued to me
a receipt, a photo copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “B”,
5. THAT despite my several follow-ups with ATTY. HECTOR TREÑAS, the latter failed to
transfer the title of aforesaid property to MRS. MARGARITA ALOCILJA. He also failed to pay
the capital gains tax, documentary stamps and BIR-related expenses. What ATTY. HECTOR
TREÑAS accomplished was only the preparation of the Deed of Sale covering aforesaid
property. A copy of said Deed of Sale is hereto attached as Annex “C”,
6. THAT in view of my persistent follow-ups, ATTY. HECTOR TREÑAS issued to me a check for
refund of the sum given to him less the attorney’s fee of P20,000.00 and the sum of P10,000.00
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017139279b2e9f749820003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

allegedly paid to BIR or in the net sum of P120,000.00. x x x

_______________
20 Rollo, p. 40.

369

VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 369

Treñas vs. People

7. THAT when said check was deposited at EQUITABLE PCI BANK dela Rosa-Rada Branch at
Makati City, the same was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason: ACCOUNT
CLOSED. x x x21

Aside from the lone allegation in the Information, no other evidence was
presented by the prosecution to prove that the offense or any of its elements
was committed in Makati City.
Under Article 315, par. 1 (b) of the RPC, the elements of  estafa  are as
follows: (1) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the
offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other
obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same; (2) that
there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the
offender, or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) there is demand by
the offended party to the offender.22
There is nothing in the documentary evidence offered by the
prosecution23  that points to where the offense, or any of its elements, was
committed. A review of the testimony of Elizabeth also shows that there was no
mention of the place where the offense was allegedly committed:
Q After the manager of Maybank referred Atty. Treñas to you, what happened next?
A We have met and he explained to the expenses and what we will have to… and she will work
for the Deed of Sale.
Q And did he quote any amount when you got to the expenses?
A Yes. I gave him ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND.
Q What was the amount quoted to you?
A ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND.
Q Did he give a breakdown of this ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND?
A Yes, sir.

_______________
21 Id., at pp. 41-42.
22 Salazar v. People of the Philippines, 480 Phil. 444; 437 SCRA 41 (2004).
23 Records, pp. 260-262.

370

370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Treñas vs. People

Q And what is the breakdown of this ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND?

A TWENTY THOUSAND is for his Attorney’s fee, NINETY THOUSAND is for the capital gain
tax TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND is intended for documentary sum (sic) and TEN
THOUSAND PESOS is for other expenses for BIR.
Q And did you give him this ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did he issue a receipt?
A Yes, sir.
Q If shown to you a receipt issued by Atty. Treñas for this ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND,
will you be able to identify it?
A Yes, sir.
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 December 22, 1999. Will you please go over this
document and inform this court what relation has this to the receipt which you said Atty.
Treñas issued to you?
A This is the receipt issued by Atty. Hector Treñas.
Q Now, after the amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND was given to Atty. Treñas by
you, what happened next?
A We made several follow-ups but he failed to do his job.24

Although the prosecution alleged that the check issued by petitioner was
dishonored in a bank in Makati, such dishonor is not an element of the offense
of estafa under Article 315, par. 1 (b) of the RPC.
Indeed, other than the lone allegation in the information, there is nothing in
the prosecution evidence which even mentions that any of the elements of the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017139279b2e9f749820003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

offense were committed in Makati. The rule is settled that an objection may be
raised based on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the offense
charged, or it may be considered motu proprio by the court at any stage of the
proceedings or on

_______________
24 Records, pp. 352-353.

371

VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 371

Treñas vs. People

appeal.25  Moreover, jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case

cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or
otherwise. That jurisdiction is conferred by the sovereign authority that
organized the court and is given only by law in the manner and form prescribed
by law.26
It has been consistently held by this Court that it is unfair to require a
defendant or accused to undergo the ordeal and expense of a trial if the court
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or offense or it is not the court of
proper venue.27  Section 15 (a) of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure of 2000 provides that “[s]ubject to existing laws, the criminal action
shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where
the offense was committed 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 where the
crime was committed as it would cause him great inconvenience in looking for
his witnesses and other evidence in another place.28 This principle echoes more
strongly in this case, where, due to distance constraints, coupled with his
advanced age and failing health, petitioner was unable to present his defense
in the charges against him.
There being no showing that the offense was committed within Makati, the
RTC of that city has no jurisdiction over the case.29
As such, there is no more need to discuss the other issue raised by
petitioner.

_______________
25 Supra; see also Rules of Court, Rule 118, Sec. 9 in relation to Sec. 3(b).
26 Id.
27  Buaya v. Polo, 251 Phil. 422; 169 SCRA 471 (1989);  Javier v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
147026-27, 11 September 2009, 599 SCRA 324.
28 Campanano v. Datuin, G.R. No. 172142, 17 October 2007, 536 SCRA 471.
29 See Uy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119000, 28 July 1997, 276 SCRA 367.

372

372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Treñas vs. People

At this juncture, this Court sees it fit to note that the Code of Professional
Responsibility strongly militates against the petitioner’s conduct in handling
the funds of his client. Rules 16.01 and 16.02 of the Code provides:
Rule 16.01—A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for
or from the client.
Rule 16.02—A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his
own and those others kept by him.

When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular
purpose (such as for filing fees, registration fees, transportation and office
expenses), he should promptly account to the client how the money was
spent.30If he does not use the money for its intended purpose, he must
immediately return it to the client. His failure either to render an accounting or
to return the money (if the intended purpose of the money does not materialize)

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017139279b2e9f749820003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility.31
Moreover, a lawyer has the duty to deliver his client’s funds or properties as
they fall due or upon demand.32 His failure to return the client’s money upon
demand gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his
own use to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in him by the
client.33  It is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional
ethics; it impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves
punishment.34
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 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserve

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017139279b2e9f749820003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017139279b2e9f749820003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12