HECTOR TREÑAS, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

8/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664
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.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173e2a9cc149e004924003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/18
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 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 motu proprio 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
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
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

Treñas vs. People
CONTRARY TO LAW.”4
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-
_______________
10 Id., at pp. 31-38.
11 Id., at pp. 39-40.
12 Id., at pp. 3-6.
13 Id., at p. 14.
362

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
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

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
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

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

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

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 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

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 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

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.30 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.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 reserved.

HECTOR TREÑAS, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HECTOR TREÑAS, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HECTOR TREÑAS, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 664

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

HECTOR TREÑAS, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

Remedial Law; Appeals; Petition for Review on Certiorari; As a rule,

356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Treñas vs. People

Same; Criminal Procedure; Courts; Jurisdiction; Venue; A court

VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 357

Treñas vs. People

Remedial Law; Evidence; An objection may be raised based on the

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

358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Treñas vs. People

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

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

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

VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 359

P20,000.00- Attorney’s fees,

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

360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered ﬁnding

We note at this point that petitioner has been variably called

VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 361

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

1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT AN

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

362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 363

bility of the prosecution witness, Elizabeth. However, the trial

The Court’s Ruling

The Petition is impressed with merit.

Review of Factual Findings

364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“Based on the evidence presented by the prosecution through private

purportedly issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, for the fraudulent

In his Motion for Reconsideration before the RTC, petitioner

VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 365

Absent any showing of a fact or circumstance of weight and inﬂuence

366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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

VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 367

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

368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In this case, the prosecution failed to show that the offense of

“That on or about the 23rd day of December, 1999, in the City of

Ordinarily, this statement would have been sufﬁcient to vest

VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 369

Aside from the lone allegation in the Information, no other

21 Id., at pp. 41-42.

23 Records, pp. 260-262.

370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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

Although the prosecution alleged that the check issued by

VOL. 664, JANUARY 25, 2012 371

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

occurred.” This fundamental principle is to ensure that the defendant