Fukuzume vs. People

A court lacks jurisdiction over a criminal case when the prosecution fails to prove that the offense or any of its essential ingredients was committed within its territorial jurisdiction, notwithstanding allegations in the information to that effect; trial evidence showing the offense occurred elsewhere divests the court of jurisdiction and requires dismissal.

Private complainant Javier Ng Yu, a businessman engaged in buying and selling aluminum scrap wires, was introduced to petitioner Yusuke Fukuzume in July 1991 by a certain Mr. Jovate (also referred to as Hubati). Fukuzume represented himself as connected to Furukawa Electric Corporation and authorized to sell aluminum scrap wires under the care of the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR). Relying on these representations, Yu agreed to purchase the scrap wires and delivered various sums of money to Fukuzume. Fukuzume provided certifications and authorization letters to substantiate his authority, but NAPOCOR subsequently refused to honor these documents, declaring them spurious. Fukuzume failed to deliver the wires or refund the money, prompting Yu to file a complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation.

• The Transaction: In July 1991, Yu went to Fukuzume's house in Parañaque, where Fukuzume represented that he was from Furukawa and had at his disposal aluminum scrap wires belonging to Furukawa but under NAPOCOR's care. Believing these representations, Yu agreed to buy the wires for an initial price of ₱200,000.00.
• The Payments: Yu gave Fukuzume a total of ₱290,000.00 in cash across four dates: ₱50,000.00 on July 12, 1991; ₱20,000.00 on July 22, 1991; ₱50,000.00 on October 14, 1991; and ₱170,000.00 on October 18, 1991. Fukuzume admitted receiving these amounts. Additionally, Fukuzume asked for money to give as "gifts" to NAPOCOR personnel, in exchange for which he issued two checks totaling ₱134,000.00, which were dishonored upon deposit due to a closed account.
• The Fraudulent Documents: To support his claim of authority, Fukuzume provided Yu two certifications dated December 17 and 27, 1991, purportedly issued by NAPOCOR and signed by its legal counsel, R. Y. Rodriguez. He also provided a letter dated January 17, 1992, signed by a Furukawa director, authorizing him to dispose of excess aluminum conductor materials stored in Tanay and Bulacan.
• The Discovery of Fraud: Fukuzume agreed to accompany Yu to the NAPOCOR compound to retrieve the wires but failed to appear. Yu presented the documents to NAPOCOR personnel, who refused to honor the Furukawa authorization letter and declared the NAPOCOR certifications spurious, noting that the signatory, R. Y. Rodriguez, was no longer connected with NAPOCOR as of December 1991. Fukuzume promised to refund Yu's money but failed to do so despite demand.
• The Venue Discrepancy: In Yu's sworn statement to the NBI, he stated that the initial ₱50,000.00 payment was made at the Intercontinental Hotel in Makati. However, during direct examination at trial, Yu testified that on July 12, 1991, he went to Fukuzume's house in Parañaque and gave the ₱50,000.00 payment there. No testimonial or documentary evidence was presented to prove that any subsequent payment or delivery of fraudulent documents occurred in Makati.

• Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that the RTC of Makati lacked territorial jurisdiction over the offense because the false representations and the initial payment transpired at his residence in Parañaque, not in Makati.
• Timing of Fraud: Petitioner maintained that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the alleged false pretense was executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.
• Novation: Petitioner argued that the original transaction had been novated and converted into a mere debtor-creditor relationship, thereby extinguishing any incipient criminal liability.

• Jurisdiction: The Office of the Solicitor General countered that the RTC of Makati had jurisdiction because an essential ingredient of the crime—the offended party being induced to part with money due to false pretense—occurred in Makati, specifically the initial ₱50,000.00 payment at the Intercontinental Hotel, as stated in Yu's sworn statement and petitioner's own affidavit.

• Territorial Jurisdiction: Whether the RTC of Makati acquired jurisdiction over the estafa charge given the evidence adduced during trial regarding the place where the elements of the crime occurred.
• Evidentiary Weight: Whether a sworn statement executed by a witness before the NBI prevails over the witness's in-court testimony regarding the place of payment.
• Admissibility of Preliminary Investigation Records: Whether the affidavit of the accused taken during the preliminary investigation may be considered evidence to establish venue.

• Territorial Jurisdiction: The RTC of Makati did not acquire jurisdiction over the case. Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction. While jurisdiction is initially determined by the allegations in the information, trial evidence demonstrating that the offense was committed outside the court's territory divests the court of jurisdiction and mandates dismissal.
• Evidentiary Weight: In-court testimony prevails over prior sworn statements. Inconsistencies between an affidavit and trial testimony are resolved in favor of the latter, affidavits taken ex parte being almost invariably incomplete and oftentimes inaccurate. Yu's trial testimony established that the initial payment and false pretenses occurred in Parañaque, and the prosecution offered no other evidence to prove that any element of estafa occurred in Makati.
• Admissibility of Preliminary Investigation Records: The affidavit of the accused taken during preliminary investigation cannot be considered evidence to establish venue. Records of the preliminary investigation do not form part of the records of the case in the RTC and must be formally introduced as evidence during trial. Because neither party presented the affidavit in evidence, it could not be relied upon to confer jurisdiction.

• Territorial Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases — Jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the territory where the court has authority to take cognizance of the offense. While jurisdiction is initially assessed based on the allegations in the complaint or information, if the evidence adduced during trial shows that the offense was committed outside that territory, the court must dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction. Venue is an essential element of jurisdiction in criminal cases.
• Inconsistency Between Affidavit and Testimony — Whenever there is inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight, affidavits taken ex parte being inferior to testimony given in court, as the former are almost invariably incomplete and oftentimes inaccurate.
• Preliminary Investigation Records — The record of the preliminary investigation does not form part of the record of the case in the RTC and must be introduced as evidence during trial; the trial court is not compelled to take judicial notice of the same.
• Jurisdiction Cannot Be Waived in Criminal Cases — Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or otherwise, as such jurisdiction is conferred by law. Objections based on lack of jurisdiction may be raised or considered motu proprio by the court at any stage of the proceedings.

• "Whenever there is inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight considering that affidavits taken ex parte are inferior to testimony given in court, the former being almost invariably incomplete and oftentimes inaccurate."
• "Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction."
• "It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts in criminal cases the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court... However, if the evidence adduced during the trial show that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction."

• Macasaet vs. People, G.R. No. 156747 — Followed. Reiterated the fundamental rule that if evidence adduced during trial shows the offense was committed outside the court's territorial jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.
• People vs. Crispin, G.R. No. 128360 — Followed. Held that an affidavit forming part of the record of the preliminary investigation does not justify its being treated as evidence because such records do not form part of the RTC record unless introduced as evidence during trial.
• Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450 — Distinguished. Recognized the exception that a defense of lack of jurisdiction may be barred by laches, but the factual circumstances justifying that departure (a civil case) were not present in the instant criminal case.

• Article 315, paragraph 2(a), Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes estafa through false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. Applied to identify the elements of the crime charged, which the prosecution failed to prove occurred in Makati.
• Rule 110, Section 15, Rules of Court — Provides that criminal prosecutions shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory wherein the offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place. Cited by the CA to justify jurisdiction, but found inapplicable due to lack of evidentiary basis placing any essential ingredient in Makati.
• Section 8(b), Rule 113, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (formerly Section 8, Rule 112) — Stipulates that the record of the preliminary investigation shall not form part of the record of the case in the RTC. Applied to exclude the accused's affidavit from being considered as evidence to establish venue.

Reynato S. Puno (Chairman), Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., and Minita V. Chico-Nazario.