Scribd
Upload
315 views

Fukuzume Vs People

Fukuzume was charged with estafa for selling aluminum scrap wires he did not actually own and failing to return the money paid by the complainant, Yu. While Yu's initial sworn statement said he paid Fukuzume partially at a hotel in Makati, at trial Yu testified the payment was made at Fukuzume's house in Paranaque. The Court of Appeals found the RTC in Makati did not have jurisdiction, as the crime was not proven to have any elements that occurred in Makati based on Yu's testimony. It set aside the conviction and said charges could be filed in the proper court. Jurisdiction over the offense charged can be raised at any stage of the criminal proceedings.

Uploaded by

Princess Rosshien Hortal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
315 views

Fukuzume Vs People

Fukuzume was charged with estafa for selling aluminum scrap wires he did not actually own and failing to return the money paid by the complainant, Yu. While Yu's initial sworn statement said he paid Fukuzume partially at a hotel in Makati, at trial Yu testified the payment was made at Fukuzume's house in Paranaque. The Court of Appeals found the RTC in Makati did not have jurisdiction, as the crime was not proven to have any elements that occurred in Makati based on Yu's testimony. It set aside the conviction and said charges could be filed in the proper court. Jurisdiction over the offense charged can be raised at any stage of the criminal proceedings.

Uploaded by

Princess Rosshien Hortal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Fukuzume vs.

People

Facts:

Private complainant Yu is engaged in buying and selling aluminum scrap wires. Yu was
introduced to Fukuzume as the latter is from Furukawa Electric Corporation (Furukawa)
and that he has at his disposal aluminum scrap wires. Fukuzume confirmed such and
told Yu that the scrap wires belong to Furukawa but they are under the care of
NAPOCOR. Believing it is true, Yu agreed to buy the aluminum scrap wires from
Fukuzume and gave the latter a total amount of P290,000.00, Fukuzume gave Yu a
letter signed by the Director of the Overseas Operation and Power Transmission Project
Divisions of Furukawa, authorizing Fukuzume to dispose of excess aluminum conductor
materials which are stored in their depots in Tanay and Bulacan. When Yu arrived at the
NAPOCOR to get the scrap wires, Furukawa was nowhere to be found. Yu instead
proceeded to show the documents of authorization to NAPOCOR personnel which the
latter did not honour. Unable to get the aluminum scrap wires from the NAPOCOR
compound, Yu talked to Fukuzume and asked from the latter the refund of the money
he paid him. Fukuzume promised to return Yu’s money. When Fukuzume failed to
comply with his undertaking, Yu filed a complaint with NBI.

Thereafter, an information was filed with the RTC of Makati charging Fukuzume with
estafa.

Upon being arraigned on February 28, 1995, Fukuzume pleaded not guilty. Trial
ensued.

RTC: found Fukuzume guilty.


CA: affirmed RTC but modified penalty. it failed to determine the minimum penalty for
the offense committed (prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
minimum period but imposed in the maximum period), hence, the penalty is modified to
six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor in its minimum period.

CA: although the false representation and verbal contract of sale of the aluminum
scrap wires took place at appellant’s residence in Parañaque, appellant and private
complainant nevertheless admitted that the initial payment of ₱50,000.00 for said
transaction was made at the Hotel Intercontinental in Makati City. The CA ruled on the
basis of the sworn statement of Yu filed with the NBI on April 19, 1994 and the affidavit
of Fukuzume which was subscribed on July 20, 1994

Issue: W/N RTC Makati has jurisdiction over the case

Ruling:

No.

While Yu’s sworn statement said that he gave Fukuzume ₱50,000.00 at the
Intercontinental Hotel in Makati on July 12, 1991, his direct examination says otherwise;
that it is in the latter’s house in Parañaque.

Settled is the rule that 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. Citing Uy vs. Court of


Appeals,37 we held in the fairly recent case of Macasaet vs. People that:

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. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the
territory where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense
allegedly committed therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a
person charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of that limited territory.
Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the
allegations in the complaint or information. And once it is so shown, the court may
validly take cognizance of the case. 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.
Where life or liberty is affected by its proceedings, the court must keep strictly within the
limits of the law authorizing it to take jurisdiction and to try the case and to render
judgment.

In the present case, the crime was alleged in the Information as having been committed
in Makati. However, aside from the sworn statement executed by Yu on April 19, 1994,
the prosecution presented no other evidence, testimonial or documentary, to
corroborate Yu’s sworn statement or to prove that any of the above-enumerated
elements of the offense charged was committed in Makati.

it is evident that the prosecution failed to prove that Fukuzume committed the crime of
estafa in Makati or that any of the essential ingredients of the offense took place in the
said city. Hence, the judgment of the trial court convicting Fukuzume of the crime of
estafa should be set aside for want of jurisdiction, without prejudice, however, to the
filing of appropriate charges with the court of competent jurisdiction.

While Fukuzume raised the issue of trial court’s jurisdiction over the offense charged
only with the CA level, the rule is settled that an objection based on the ground that the
court lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged may be raised or considered motu
propio 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, since such jurisdiction is conferred by the
sovereign authority which organized the court, and is given only by law in the manner
and form prescribed by law.

The exception of such rule in the landmark case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy do not apply
wherein the defense of lack of jurisdiction by the court which rendered the questioned
ruling was considered to be barred by laches, we find that the factual circumstances
involved in said case, a civil case, which justified the departure from the general rule are
not present in the instant criminal case.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy