FACTS:

Margarita Alocilja wanted to buy a house in Iloilo City and sought the advice of the appellant Hector Treñas, who was recommended to her by Maybank's bank manager, Joselito Palma. Hector informed Elizabeth Luciaja, the representative of Margarita, about the expenses required for the titling process. Elizabeth gave Hector P150,000 and received a receipt for the amount. It was later discovered that the receipts were fake, and Hector admitted to using the money for his other transactions. Hector tried to settle his accounts by issuing a check to Elizabeth, but it bounced due to a closed account. Despite demands for payment, Hector failed to comply, resulting in the filing of an estafa case against him. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Hector guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment, and ordered him to indemnify Elizabeth. Hector filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied, and then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, prompting Hector to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

The petitioner argues two main issues. Firstly, he claims that the prosecution failed to establish that he received the amount of P150,000 in Makati City as alleged in the complaint. He argues that since his residence and office were in Iloilo City, it is presumed that the delivery of the money happened there. The petitioner further contends that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the case since the acts material to the crime did not occur in Makati City. Secondly, the petitioner argues that even assuming there was misappropriation, the person who was actually offended, Margarita, did not make the prior demand required in the offense of estafa. The demand made by Elizabeth, who claimed ownership of the money, does not fulfill the requirement. Additionally, the demand referred to a different amount. The petitioner also claims that there is no evidence showing that he received the demand letter.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) supports the trial court's conviction of the petitioner. They argue that the petitioner did not present any evidence to support his claim that the case should have been filed in Iloilo City. The OSG further asserts that the trial court's assessment of the witness's credibility should be given great weight. On the second issue, the OSG argues that the defense of "no valid demand" was not raised in the lower court and that the demand letter sent to Elizabeth satisfies the requirement since she is an agent of Margarita. The OSG recommends that the Court may consider recommending the petitioner for executive clemency due to his advanced age and failing health.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the offense charged

2. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to try the offense charged.

3. Whether the prosecution proved that the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the trial court.

4. Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the venue of the offense as Makati City.

5. Whether the lawyer's issuance of checks drawn against a closed account constitutes a ground for disciplinary action.

6. Whether the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) should initiate disciplinary proceedings against the lawyer.

7. Whether the lawyer should be ordered to immediately return the amount of ?130,000 to his client.

RULING:

1. The trial court did not have jurisdiction over the offense charged.

2. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to try the offense charged and that the prosecution failed to establish that the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the trial court. The Court emphasized that venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. If the evidence presented during the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that the essential elements of the offense charged took place within the jurisdiction of the trial court.

3. The court ruled that there is no sufficient evidence to establish that the offense was committed in Makati City. The prosecution failed to present any documentary evidence or testimony that points to where the offense was allegedly committed. It was also noted that the dishonor of the check in a bank in Makati is not an element of the offense of estafa. Therefore, since there is no showing that the offense was committed within Makati, the RTC of that city has no jurisdiction over the case.

4. Yes, the lawyer's issuance of checks drawn against a closed account constitutes a ground for disciplinary action.

5. Yes, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) should initiate disciplinary proceedings against the lawyer.

6. Yes, the lawyer should be ordered to immediately return the amount of ?130,000 to his client.

PRINCIPLES:

• Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

• Exceptions to the general rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review include when the factual findings of the lower courts are contradictory, when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts, or when the findings of fact are conclusion without citation of the specific evidence on which they are based.

• The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction.

• Jurisdiction in criminal cases is acquired by courts when the offense is committed or any one of its essential ingredients takes place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

• The jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.

• Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction.

• If the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.

• An objection to the jurisdiction over the subject matter of a criminal case may be raised at any stage of the proceedings or on appeal, and it may also be considered motu proprio by the court.

• Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or otherwise. It is conferred by the sovereign authority that organized the court and is given only by law in the manner and form prescribed by law.

• 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, to ensure that the defendant is not compelled to move to a different court from that of the province where the crime was committed, causing inconvenience and difficulty in presenting a defense.

• The Code of Professional Responsibility imposes the duty on lawyers to account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client and to keep the funds of each client separate and apart from their own and those of others kept by them. Failure to comply with these duties constitutes a violation of the Rules.

• Issuance of checks drawn against a closed account by a lawyer indicates the lawyer's unfitness for trust, lack of personal honesty, lack of good moral character, and renders the lawyer unworthy of public confidence.

• The issuance of checks drawn against a closed account impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.

• The IBP has the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer who has engaged in misconduct.

• If a lawyer fails to account for the funds received in trust, the lawyer may be ordered to immediately return the amount to the client, with appropriate interest.