Case Digest (G.R. No. 195002)
Facts:
The case involves Hector TreAas, the petitioner, who was accused of Estafa under Section 1, Paragraph (b) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The case originated from an incident in December 1999 when Margarita Alocilja sought to buy a house-and-lot in Iloilo City covered by TCT No. 109266, which was mortgaged with Maybank. Joselito Palma, the bank manager, referred Hector TreAas to Elizabeth Luciaja, Margarita's niece and employee, for assistance in transferring the title. Hector informed Elizabeth that expenses amounting to P150,000 would be required, including attorney's fees and taxes. Elizabeth gave Hector P150,000, for which he issued a receipt dated December 22, 1999, and prepared a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage. Hector also issued Revenue Official Receipts for P96,000 and P24,000, which were later found to be fake. When confronted, Hector admitted to misusing P120,000 of the money. Elizabeth demanded the return of the funds, and Hector issued a bank checCase Digest (G.R. No. 195002)
Facts:
- Parties and Subject Matter
- Petitioner Hector TreAas was recommended by a bank manager to private complainant Elizabeth Luciaja, niece of Margarita Alocilja, who wanted to buy a house-and-lot in Iloilo City.
- Elizabeth entrusted P150,000.00 to petitioner to cover attorney's fees, capital gains tax, documentary stamps, and miscellaneous BIR expenses related to the property.
- Transaction and Alleged Misconduct
- Petitioner issued a receipt for the amount and prepared a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage.
- Petitioner gave Elizabeth receipts purportedly from the BIR for P96,000.00 and P24,000.00, which were found to be fake.
- Petitioner admitted to using the P120,000.00 for other purposes.
- Elizabeth demanded return of the money.
- Issuance of Dishonored Check and Filing of Charges
- Petitioner issued a check for P120,000.00 dated November 10, 2000, after deducting attorney's fees.
- The check was dishonored due to the account being closed.
- Estafa charges were filed against petitioner in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City for misappropriation of trust money.
- Court Proceedings
- Petitioner pleaded not guilty but did not attend proceedings citing old age, health, and distance.
- RTC convicted petitioner of estafa, sentencing him to 10 years and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months imprisonment, and ordered indemnification.
- Motion for reconsideration was denied.
- Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) was dismissed; CA affirmed RTC ruling.
- Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
- Issues Raised by Petitioner
- Lack of jurisdiction of RTC due to the offense allegedly not committed in Makati City.
- Demand for payment made by Elizabeth, who was not the offended party.
- Government’s Response
- Prosecutor maintained jurisdiction and evidence supported findings even if petitioner did not present counter evidence.
- Elizabeth was considered an agent and the demand letter sufficed.
Issues:
- Whether the Regional Trial Court of Makati City had jurisdiction over the offense given the alleged place of commission.
- Whether the demand for payment made by a person other than the offended party satisfied the requirement under estafa law.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)