Treñas v. People of the Philippines GR 195002, January 25, 2012
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.
Treñas v.
People of the Philippines GR 195002,
January 25, 2012
1)P20,000.00- Attorneys fees;
2) P90,000.00-Capital Gains Tax;
3) P24,000.00- Documentary Stamp, and
4) 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 Receipts with official receipt nos.
covering P96,000.00 and P24,000.00. However,
she was informed by the BIR that the receipts were fake. Hector admitted
to her that the receipts were fake and that he used the P120,000.00 for his other
transactions.
To settle his accounts, Hector
issued in favor of Elizabeth a Bank of Commerce check dated November 10, 2000
in the amount of P120,000.00, deducting from P150,000.00 the P30,000.00 as
attorneys 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.
An information was filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor before the RTC, both of Makati which reads:
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.
During arraignment, petitioner,
entered a plea of Not Guilty. And 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 Decision finding petitioner guilty of the crime of Estafa. Hector
appealed before the CA but the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. Aggrieved,
Hector appealed before the Supreme Court and asserts that nowhere in the
evidence presented by the prosecution does it show that ₱150,000 was given to
and received by petitioner in Makati City. Instead, the evidence shows that the
Receipt issued by petitioner for the money indicates only date, without any
indication of the place where it was issued. 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.
Thus, the trial court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the case.
ISSUE
Can the Regional Trial Court of Makati acquire
jurisdiction over the crime of estafa
which the prosecution failed to allege any of the acts material to such
crime had occurred in Makati City?
RULING
No. The accused is correct in his argument that he is not
required to present evidence to prove lack of jurisdiction when such lack is
already indicated in the prosecution evidence. As a settled principle in
criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. A court cannot exercise jurisdiction
over a person charged with an offense committed outside its limited territory.
As explained in the case of Isip v.
People, 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
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.
Moreover, Section 15 (a)
of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure of 2000 provides that
subject 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. Hence, 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. This Court consistently rules
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.
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. There is nothing in the documentary
evidence offered by the prosecution 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.
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. There being no showing
that the offense was committed within Makati, the RTC of that city has no
jurisdiction over the case.
Scrbd
Comments
Post a Comment