G.R. No. 143647 - Yusuke Fukuzume vs. People

The petitioner, Yusuke Fukuzume (also spelled Fukuzumi in some records), was charged with estafa, and the respondent is the People of the Philippines.
The private complainant, Javier Ng Yu, is a businessman engaged in buying and selling aluminum scrap wires.

In July 1991, Yu, accompanied by Mr. Jovate (vice-president of Manila Electric Company), visited Fukuzume’s residence in ParaAaque.
Jovate introduced Fukuzume to Yu, stating that Fukuzume was associated with Furukawa Electric Corporation and had aluminum scrap wires available for sale.
Fukuzume confirmed that the scrap wires belonged to Furukawa but were in the custody of the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR).
Based on this representation, Yu agreed to purchase the scrap wires, initially priced at P200,000.00.

Fukuzume acknowledged receipt of the money and admitted owing Yu the same amount.
To support his claim that the aluminum scrap wires belonged to Furukawa and were under NAPOCOR’s care, Fukuzume provided two certifications dated December 17, 1991, and December 27, 1991, purportedly issued by NAPOCOR.
On issuing a second certification, he requested additional money from Yu as “gifts” to certain persons in NAPOCOR and subsequently provided two checks (P100,000.00 and P34,000.00) that later bounced due to a closed account.

After the bounced checks, Fukuzume promised to furnish an authorization that would allow Yu to retrieve the aluminum scrap wires from NAPOCOR.
On January 17, 1992, Yu received a letter, allegedly signed by the Director of the Overseas Operation and Power Transmission Project Divisions of Furukawa, authorizing Fukuzume to dispose excess aluminum materials.
Fukuzume agreed to accompany Yu to the NAPOCOR compound, but on the scheduled date, he was absent.
NAPOCOR refused to honor the authorization or the certifications on the ground that the latter were spurious due to the disconnection of the signer from NAPOCOR.

Unable to retrieve the aluminum scrap wires, Yu demanded a refund of his money from Fukuzume.
When Fukuzume failed to return the money as promised, Yu sent him a demand letter for P424,000.00 plus loss of profits.
Subsequently, Yu filed a complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), leading to a formal criminal Information charging Fukuzume with estafa.
The Information was filed on November 4, 1994, with the RTC of Makati, specifying that from July 1991 to September 17, 1992, Fukuzume had defrauded Yu by falsely representing his affiliation with Furukawa and inducing payment for aluminum scrap wires which were never delivered.

On February 28, 1995, Fukuzume pleaded not guilty at his arraignment.
The RTC of Makati, Branch 146, found Fukuzume guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa on October 21, 1996, sentencing him to imprisonment (maximum penalty of 20 years) and ordering him to pay the complainant P424,000.00 plus interest.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the penalty to a range from a minimum of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor to a maximum of twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, while affirming the conviction.
Fukuzume then petitioned for review on certiorari under Rule 45, raising issues concerning jurisdiction and the substance of the CA’s decision.

Whether the RTC of Makati had proper territorial jurisdiction over the offense of estafa charged against Fukuzume.
Whether the elements of the crime, particularly the transaction related to the false representation, occurred within the territorial bounds of Makati.

Whether the alleged false pretense, which induced Yu to part with his money, occurred in Makati or elsewhere (specifically, at Fukuzume’s residence in ParaAaque).
The credibility and sufficiency of the evidence regarding where the payments and fraudulent representation took place.

Whether the CA erred in deciding the question of jurisdiction by relying on evidence and sworn statements that conflicted with in-court testimony.
Whether the CA improperly decided issues of substance, particularly those related to the timing of the fraudulent act and the conversion of the transaction into a debtor-creditor relationship that might extinguish any incipient criminal liability.