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 me a check for a refund of the sum given to him, less the attorney’s fee of P20,000 and the sum of P10,000 allegedly paid to BIR or in the net sum of P120,000.
“7. THAT when the 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.”
“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 (Revised Penal Code), 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 a demand by the offended party to the offender. There is nothing in the documentary evidence offered by the prosecution that points to where the offense, or any of its elements, was committed.”
“A review of Elizabeth’s testimony also shows that the place where the offense was allegedly committed was not mentioned.
“Although the prosecution alleged that the check issued by the 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 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. There being no showing that the offense was committed within Makati, the RTC of that city has no jurisdiction over the case.”
See how a mere technicality can result in acquittal. That seemingly innocuous oversight caused the prosecution to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The facts and quoted part of the decision are from Hector Trenas v. People of the Philippines (G.R. 195002, 25 January 2012).
