People v. Fukuzume
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private complainant Javier Ng Yu (Yu) was introduced to Yusuke Fukuzume (Fukuzume) by a friend who represented Fukuzume as being from Furukawa Electric Corporation (Furukawa) and having aluminum scrap wires at his disposal. Fukuzume confirmed this, stating the wires belonged to Furukawa but were under the care of the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR). Yu agreed to buy the wires for an initial price of ₱200,000.00. Yu gave Fukuzume sums totaling ₱290,000.00 on various dates. Fukuzume provided Yu with two certifications purportedly from NAPOCOR, signed by R.Y. Rodriguez, its legal counsel, to support his claim. Subsequently, Fukuzume asked for more money, claiming it was for gifts to NAPOCOR personnel, and issued two checks for ₱100,000.00 and ₱34,000.00, which were dishonored due to a closed account. Fukuzume promised to provide authorization to retrieve the wires, and later gave Yu a letter from Furukawa authorizing Fukuzume to dispose of excess aluminum conductor materials. When Yu went to NAPOCOR with the authorization, it was not honored, and NAPOCOR disavowed the certifications, stating the signatory was no longer connected with them. Yu demanded a refund of ₱424,000.00, and upon Fukuzume's failure to comply, Yu filed a complaint with the NBI. Procedural History: Fukuzume was charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 146, found Fukuzume guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to twenty (20) years imprisonment and to pay Yu ₱424,000.00 plus legal interest. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification, setting the minimum penalty at six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor in its minimum period to a maximum of twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal in its maximum period. The Petition: Fukuzume filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA decision and resolution. He raised issues concerning the RTC's jurisdiction, the timing of the false pretense, and the novation of the transaction into a debtor-creditor relationship.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court of Makati had jurisdiction over the crime of estafa charged against the petitioner. Whether the false pretense was executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; and whether the original transaction was novated into a mere debtor-creditor relationship, thereby extinguishing any criminal liability.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, SET ASIDE the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, and DISMISSED Criminal Case No. 95-083 without prejudice on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 146.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Jurisdiction: The Court held that the RTC of Makati lacked jurisdiction because the prosecution failed to prove that any essential ingredient of the crime of estafa was committed within its territorial jurisdiction. While the CA relied on Yu's sworn statement that an initial payment of ₱50,000.00 was made at the Intercontinental Hotel in Makati, the Court gave greater weight to Yu's testimony during direct examination, which stated that the initial payment was made at Fukuzume's house in Parañaque. The Court emphasized that venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction and that if evidence shows the offense was committed elsewhere, the court should dismiss the action. The Court found that all elements of the estafa offense, as defined under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, were consummated when Yu and Fukuzume met at the latter's house in Parañaque, where the false pretense was made and the initial payment was given. The Court also noted that Fukuzume's affidavit, which mentioned a payment in Makati, was part of the preliminary investigation record and was not formally presented as evidence during the trial, thus it could not be considered. On the Timing of False Pretense and Novation: Having found that the RTC lacked jurisdiction, the Supreme Court deemed it unnecessary to consider the other issues raised by the petitioner, including whether the false pretense was executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, and whether the transaction was novated into a debtor-creditor relationship. The Court reiterated the principle that jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case cannot be conferred by the accused and that an objection based on lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal, and can even be considered motu proprio by the court. The Court distinguished the present case from Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, where the defense of lack of jurisdiction was deemed barred by laches, finding that the factual circumstances in the civil case justifying that departure were not present here.
Main Doctrine
The RTC of Makati lacked jurisdiction to try the estafa case against Fukuzume because the prosecution failed to prove that any of the essential elements of the crime were committed within its territorial jurisdiction. The evidence presented indicated that the offense was consummated in Parañaque.