Case Digest (G.R. No. 195002)
Facts:
Hector Trenas v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 195002, January 25, 2012, Supreme Court Second Division, Sereno, J., writing for the Court.Sometime in December 1999 Margarita Alocilja sought to buy a house-and-lot in Iloilo City (TCT No. 109266). On recommendation of a Maybank manager, petitioner Hector Trenas was retained by Elizabeth Luciaja (an employee and niece of Margarita) to assist in transferring title and paying taxes and fees. Trenas quoted a total of P150,000 (breakdown: P20,000 attorney’s fees; P90,000 capital gains tax; P24,000 documentary stamps; P10,000 miscellaneous). Elizabeth gave Trenas P150,000 and received a receipt dated December 22, 1999; Trenas prepared a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage dated the same day. Elizabeth later discovered that revenue receipts Trenas gave her were fake; Trenas allegedly admitted using P120,000 for other transactions and failed to account for or return the funds.
To settle, Trenas issued a Bank of Commerce check for P120,000 dated November 10, 2000, but the check was dishonored when deposited at Equitable-PCI Bank, Makati (reason: account closed). After formal demands failed, an estafa complaint was filed.
An Information was filed by the City Prosecutor before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City on October 29, 2001, charging Trenas with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, alleging the offense occurred in Makati City. Trenas pleaded not guilty on April 26, 2002; due to age and health and his residence in Iloilo, he did not appear at pre-trial and trial.
On January 8, 2007, the RTC (Makati) convicted Trenas of estafa with abuse of confidence and sentenced him to imprisonment and ordered indemnification of P130,000 with 12% interest. His motion for reconsideration was denied on July 2, 2008. Trenas appealed to the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. CR No. 32177); the CA rendered a Decision on July 9, 2010 affirming the RTC, and denied reconsideration on January 4, 2011.
Trenas filed a Motion for Extension to file a petition for review; the Supreme Court granted extension on February 9, 2011. He then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 on February 3, 2011, assigning two errors: (1) that he need not present evidence to prove lack of jurisdiction where the prosecution’s evidence shows the offense was not in Makati, and (2) that demand by a person other than the aggrieved party (Elizabeth acting as agent for Margarita) does not s...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC of Makati City and the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction over the estafa case when the prosecution’s evidence did not establish that the offense or any of its essential ingredients occurred in Makati City?
- If jurisdiction were proper, did the demand by Elizabeth (who allegedly acted as agent of Margarita) satisfy the prior-demand requirement for estafa under Article 315, paragra...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)