Hector TreAas vs. People

Factual Background

Sometime in December 1999, Margarita Alocilja sought to buy a house-and-lot in Iloilo City covered by TCT No. 109266, then mortgaged with Maybank. The bank manager recommended Hector Trenas to private complainant Elizabeth Luciaja, who acted for her aunt Margarita. Trenas quoted expenses totaling P150,000: P20,000 attorney’s fee, P90,000 capital gains tax, P24,000 documentary stamp, and P10,000 miscellaneous. Elizabeth gave P150,000 to Trenas on or about December 22, 1999, and he issued a receipt and prepared a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage. He later gave Elizabeth receipts purportedly from the BIR for P96,000 and P24,000, which the BIR later declared counterfeit. When confronted, Trenas admitted that the receipts were fake and that he used P120,000 for other transactions. He issued a check dated November 10, 2000 for P120,000, which was dishonored at Equitable-PCI Bank, Makati Branch, for reason "account closed." Repeated demands failed to elicit payment.

Information and Criminal Charge

On October 29, 2001, the Office of the City Prosecutor filed an Information before the RTC of Makati charging Trenas with estafa under Article 315, Section 1, paragraph (b), Revised Penal Code, alleging that on or about December 23, 1999 in Makati City he received in trust P150,000 from Elizabeth Luciaja and misappropriated P130,000. The Information explicitly alleged Makati City as the place of commission.

Trial Proceedings and Conviction

During arraignment on April 26, 2002, petitioner pleaded not guilty and, purportedly due to advanced age, poor health, and residence in Iloilo City, did not attend pre-trial or trial. On January 8, 2007, the RTC found Trenas guilty of estafa with abuse of confidence under Article 315, sentenced him to ten years and one day to seventeen years and four months imprisonment, and ordered indemnification of P130,000 with twelve percent interest from filing of the case.

Appellate Proceedings

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration before the RTC, which was denied on July 2, 2008. He appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in a Decision dated July 9, 2010, affirmed the RTC. A motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied by resolution dated January 4, 2011. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, raising two assignments of error.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioner framed two principal issues: (1) whether an accused must present evidence to establish lack of jurisdiction when such lack appears from the prosecution’s evidence, and (2) whether demand by a person other than the aggrieved party satisfies the demand requirement under estafa. He contended that the prosecution did not prove that the P150,000 was delivered in Makati, pointing to a receipt undated as to place and a deed notarized in Iloilo, and that the only Makati connection was the dishonored check.

Office of the Solicitor General’s Position

The OSG argued that the RTC and the CA did not err. It observed that petitioner did not dispute the trial court’s factual findings as to delivery of P150,000 and that the relationship of trust between Trenas and Elizabeth was established. The OSG emphasized that credibility findings by the trial court merited deference and that petitioner failed to present evidence at trial to support his claim of delivery in Iloilo. As to demand, the OSG maintained that Elizabeth, as agent for Margarita and a complainant in the Information, could effect the demand. The OSG also suggested executive clemency in view of petitioner’s age and health.

Scope of Review and Exceptions to Rule 45

The Court recognized that Rule 45 ordinarily restricts review to questions of law, but reiterated the established exceptions permitting review of factual findings. The Court listed those exceptions as applied in precedents such as Salcedo v. People, and concluded that the present case fell within an exception because the lower courts’ findings on the place of commission were conclusions lacking citation to specific evidence and were grounded on conjecture.

Jurisdiction and Venue Principles Applied

The Court reiterated the settled principle that venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional and that a court cannot try an offense allegedly committed outside its territorial limits. It cited Isip v. People and Fukuzume v. People for the rule that prosecution must prove both the commission of the offense and that it occurred within the court’s territorial jurisdiction. The Court noted that jurisdiction over a criminal case derives solely from law and cannot be conferred by the accused’s waiver.

Analysis of the Prosecution Evidence on Place of Commission

The Court examined the record and found that, aside from the allegation in the Information, the prosecution produced no evidence establishing that any essential ingredient of estafa occurred in Makati. The Affidavit of Complaint executed by Elizabeth did not state the place where the offense was committed. Elizabeth’s testimony recounted the delivery of P150,000 and the issuance of receipts but did not specify where the delivery occurred. Documentary evidence in the record likewise failed to indicate that the elements of Article 315, par. 1(b) occurred in Makati. The Court observed that the dishonor of the refund check at a Makati bank branch was not an element of the offense and therefore did not establish venue.

On the Trial Court’s and CA’s Reliance on Absence of Defense Evidence

The Court criticized the RTC and the CA for basing jurisdictional findings on conjecture and on petitioner’s failure to present defense evidence. It held that the prosecution bore the burden to prove the venue and that the accused should not be compelled to p