G.R. No.

149588 August 16, 2010

FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS and CARMELITA C. LLAMAS, Petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, BRANCH 66 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN MAKATI CITY and THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioners are assailing the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City convicting them of the offense “Other Forms of
Swindling” punishable under Article 316, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

The trial court found that the accused spouses, well-knowing that their parcel of land was mortgaged to the Bank, sold the said land to
one Avila, falsely representing the same to be free from all liens and encumbrances whatsoever, and said Conrado P. Avila bought the
aforementioned property. After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its Decision, finding petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime charged.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals, affirmed the decision of the trial court, and subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration of the
petitioners.

Assailing the aforesaid issuances of the appellate court, petitioners filed before the Supreme Court, their petition for review. The Court,
however,denied the same for petitioners failure to state the material dates. Since it subsequently denied petitioners motion for
reconsideration, the judgment of conviction became final and executory. Thereafter, apprehension of the spouses ensued through a
warrant and only Carmelita was arrested.

In 2001, petitioner Francisco moved for the lifting or recall of the warrant of arrest, raising for the first time the issue that the trial court
had no jurisdiction over the offense charged. There being no action taken by the trial court on the said motion, petitioners instituted,the
instant proceedings for the annulment of the trial and the appellate courts decisions.

In 2009 decision of the Court, it held that, following the ruling in People v. Bitanga, the remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be
availed of in criminal cases. The Court likewise rejected petitioners contention that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the case.
However, the petitioners still seek another recourse to the Court for the reversal of the 2009 Decision and, consequently, the annulment
of their conviction by the trial court.

ISSUE:
Whether the Llamas spouses may avail of the remedy of the annulment of judgment.

HELD:
Yes. The spouses can avail of the annulment of judgment.

In People v. Bitanga, the Court explained that the remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be availed of in criminal cases.

In the interest of justice and for humanitarian reasons, the Court deems it necessary to re-examine this case. xxx This Court has, on occasion,
suspended the application of technical rules of procedure where matters of life, liberty, honor or property, among other instances, are at stake. It has
allowed some meritorious cases to proceed despite inherent procedural defects and lapses on the principle that rules of procedure are mere tools
designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. The strict and rigid application of rules that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice
must always be avoided. It is far better and more prudent for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case to attain
the ends of justice, rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause grave injustice to the parties.
SC noted that the case was allowed to run its course as a petition for certiorari, such that in its April 12, 2004 Resolution, it said
“Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the petition for review on certiorari x x x.”

Likewise, in its February 10, 2003 Resolution, SC said, “It appearing that Atty. Francisco R. Llamas, in his own behalf and as counsel
for petitioners, has failed to file their reply to the Solicitor Generals comment on the petition for review on certiorari within the extended
period x x x.””

Thus, the SC, at the first instance, had recognized that the petition, although captioned differently, was indeed one for certiorari.

Since SC resolved to treat the petition as one for certiorari, the doctrine in People v. Bitanga no longer finds application in this case.

(As to the criminal aspect of the case, the court acquitted the petitioners on the ground that their guilt was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt.)

G.R. No. 149588, September 29, 2009

LLAMAS, Petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS:
On August 16, 1984, petitioners were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati withthe crime of "other
forms of swindling". After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its Decisionfinding petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime charged. On appeal, the Court of Appealsaffirmed the decision of the trial court.

Assailing the aforesaid issuances of the appellate court, petitioners filed before this Court their petition for review. The Court,
however, denied the same for petitioners’ failure to state the material dates. Since it subsequently denied petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration, the judgment of conviction became final and executory.

With the consequent issuance by the trial court of the Warrant of Arrest, the police arrested petitioner Carmelita C. Llamas
for her to serve her 2-month jail term. The police, nevertheless, failed to arrest petitioner Francisco R. Llamas because he was
nowhere to be found.

Petitioner Francisco moved for the lifting or recall of the warrant of arrest, raising for the first time the issue that the trial
court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged.There being no action taken by the trial court on the said motion, petitioners
institutedthe instant proceedings for the annulment of the trial and the appellate courts’ decisions.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the remedy of annulment of the Trial Court’s judgment under Rule 47 can be availed of in criminal cases

HELD:
After a thorough evaluation of petitioners’ arguments vis-à-vis the applicable law and jurisprudence, the Court denies the
petition.

In People v. Bitanga, the Court explained that the remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be availed of in criminal cases,
thus —

Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, limits the scope of the remedy of annulment of judgment to the following:
Section 1. Coverage. — This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders
and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.

The remedy cannot be resorted to when the RTC judgment being questioned was rendered in a criminal case. The 2000
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure itself does not permit such recourse, for it excluded Rule 47 from the enumeration of the
provisions of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure which have suppletory application to criminal cases. Section 18, Rule 124
thereof, provides:

Sec. 18. Application of certain rules in civil procedure to criminal cases. – The provisions of Rules 42, 44 to 46 and
48 to 56 relating to procedure in the Court of Appeals and in the Supreme Court in original and appealed civil
cases shall be applied to criminal cases insofar as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of
this Rule.

There is no basis in law or the rules, therefore, to extend the scope of Rule 47 to criminal cases. As we explained in
Macalalag v. Ombudsman, when there is no law or rule providing for this remedy, recourse to it cannot be allowed.

Here, petitioners are invoking the remedy under Rule 47 to assail a decision in a criminal case. Following Bitanga, this Court
cannot allow such recourse, there being no basis in law or in the rules.

In substance, the petition must likewise fail. The trial court which rendered the assailed decision had jurisdiction over the
criminal case.

LLAMAS v. CA

G.R. No. 149588/ AUG. 16, 2010 / NACHURA, J./CRIMPRO-Annulment of Judgments by CA: Suspension of technical rules, pro hac vice /PSPAMBID

NATURE Petition for Annulment of Judgment and Certiorari, with Preliminary Injunction

PETITIONERS Francisco R. Llamas and Carmelita C. Llamas

RESPONDENTS Court of Appeals, Branch 66 of the RTC in Makati City and the People of the Philippines

SUMMARY. Francisco R. Llamas and Carmelita C. Llamas were convicted of “other forms of
swindling”. Petitioners assailed the jurisdiction of the court after they have been convicted,
and moved that the proceedings be annulled.
DOCTRINE. The remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be availed of in criminal cases.

FACTS.

 On August 16, 1984, petitioners were charged before the RTC of Makati with the crime of "other forms of swindling" penalized by Article 316,
paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC)
o Francisco R. Llamas and Carmelita C. Llamas sold their property in Paranaque to Conrado P. Avila, representing it tobe free from all
liens and encumbrances while it was leased to the Rural Bank of Imus.
 30 June 1994: RTC found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt
 19 February 1999: CA affirmed decision of the trial court, and on 22 December 1999 denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration
 11 February 2000: Petitioners filed a petition for review, rejected by the SC for failure to state material dates
 28 June 2000: SC denied subsequent motion for reconsideration; judgment of conviction final and executory
 On April 27, 2001, Petitioner Carmelita C. Llamas was arrested by the police but they failed to arrest petitioner Francisco R. Llamas because he
was nowhere to be found
 On July 16, 2001, Francisco moved for the lifting or recall of the warrant of arrest, raising for the first time the issue that the trial court had no
jurisdiction over the offense charged.
 There being no action taken by the trial court on the motion, petitioners instituted, on September 13, 2001, the instant proceedings for the
annulment of the trial and the appellate courts’ decisions
 The Court initially dismissed on technical grounds the petition in the September 24, 2001 Resolution, but reinstated the same, on motion for
reconsideration, in the October 22, 2001 Resolution.
ISSUES & RATIO.

1. Whether or not the petitioners can institute an annulment of the RTC and CA since the courts did not take any action when they (the
petitioners) raised the issue of jurisdiction. – NO.
 Following Bitanga, this Court cannot allow such recourse, there being no basis in law or in the rules.
 In People v. Bitanga the Court explained that the remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be availed of in criminal cases:
o Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court1, limits the scope of the remedy of annulment of judgment. The remedy cannot be
resorted to when the RTC judgment being questioned was rendered in a criminal case.
o The 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure2 itself does not permit such recourse, for it excluded Rule 47 from the
enumeration of the provisions of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure which have suppletory application to criminal cases.

2. WON the RTC had jurisdiction over the criminal case. – YES.
 the established rule is that the statute in force (in this case the statute was BP 1293) at the time of the commencement of the action
determines the jurisdiction of the court.
 The penalty for the crime charged in this case is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, which has a duration of 1 month and
1 day to 4 months, and a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than three times such value. Here, the
imposable fine is P12,895.00
 The MeTC could not have acquired jurisdiction over the criminal action because at the time of the filing of the information, its
jurisdiction was limited to offenses punishable with a fine of not more than P4,000.00.

DECISION.

Petition DENIED.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 149588 September 29, 2009

FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS and CARMELITA C. LLAMAS, Petitioners,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, BRANCH 66 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN MAKATI CITY and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

DECISION

NACHURA, J.:

In this petition captioned as "Annulment of Judgment and Certiorari, with Preliminary Injunction," petitioners assail, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction,
the trial court’s decision convicting them of "other form of swindling" penalized by Article 316, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

The antecedent facts and proceedings that led to the filing of the instant petition are pertinently narrated as follows:

On August 16, 1984, petitioners were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati with, as aforesaid, the crime of "other forms of swindling"
in the Information,1 docketed as Criminal Case No. 11787, which reads:

That on or about the 20th day of November, 1978, in the municipality of Parañaque, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another, well knowing that their
parcel of land known as Lot No. 11, Block No. 6 of the Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd 67036, Cadastral Survey of Parañaque, LRC Record No. N-26926,
Case No. 4869, situated at Barrio San Dionisio, Municipality of Parañaque, Metro Manila, was mortgaged to the Rural Bank of Imus, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell said property to one Conrado P. Avila, falsely representing the same to be free from all liens and encumbrances
whatsoever, and said Conrado P. Avila bought the aforementioned property for the sum of ₱12,895.00 which was paid to the accused, to the damage
and prejudice of said Conrado P. Avila in the aforementioned amount of ₱12,895.00.

Contrary to law.2

After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its Decision3 on June 30, 1994, finding petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and
sentencing them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for two months and to pay the fine of ₱18,085.00 each.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in its February 19, 1999 Decision4 in CA-G.R. CR No. 18270, affirmed the decision of the trial court. In its December
22, 1999 Resolution,5 the appellate court further denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

1
Section 1. Coverage. — This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.
2
Sec. 18. Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
Application of certain rules in civil procedure to criminal cases. – The provisions of Rules 42, 44 to 46 and 48 to 56 relating to procedure in the Court of Appeals and in the Supreme Court in
original and appealed civil cases shall be applied to criminal cases insofar as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.
3
Section 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal
or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter.
xxxx
Section 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in criminal cases. — Except in cases falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
xxx
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding four years and two months, or a fine of not more than four thousand pesos, or both such
fine and imprisonment, regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature,
value, or amount thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the imposable
fine does not exceed twenty thousand pesos.
Assailing the aforesaid issuances of the appellate court, petitioners filed before this Court, on February 11, 2000, their petition for review, docketed as
G.R. No. 141208.6 The Court, however, on March 13, 2000, denied the same for petitioners’ failure to state the material dates. Since it subsequently
denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on June 28, 2000, 7 the judgment of conviction became final and executory.

With the consequent issuance by the trial court of the April 19, 2001 Warrant of Arrest, 8 the police arrested, on April 27, 2001, petitioner Carmelita C.
Llamas for her to serve her 2-month jail term. The police, nevertheless, failed to arrest petitioner Francisco R. Llamas because he was nowhere to be
found.9

On July 16, 2001, petitioner Francisco moved for the lifting or recall of the warrant of arrest, raising for the first time the issue that the trial court had no
jurisdiction over the offense charged.10

There being no action taken by the trial court on the said motion, petitioners instituted, on September 13, 2001, the instant proceedings for the
annulment of the trial and the appellate courts’ decisions.

The Court initially dismissed on technical grounds the petition in the September 24, 2001 Resolution, 11 but reinstated the same, on motion for
reconsideration, in the October 22, 2001 Resolution.12

After a thorough evaluation of petitioners’ arguments vis-à-vis the applicable law and jurisprudence, the Court denies the petition.

In People v. Bitanga,13 the Court explained that the remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be availed of in criminal cases, thus —

Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, limits the scope of the remedy of annulment of judgment to the following:

Section 1. Coverage. — This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of
Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through
no fault of the petitioner.
a1f

The remedy cannot be resorted to when the RTC judgment being questioned was rendered in a criminal case. The 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure itself does not permit such recourse, for it excluded Rule 47 from the enumeration of the provisions of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure which have suppletory application to criminal cases. Section 18, Rule 124 thereof, provides:

Sec. 18. Application of certain rules in civil procedure to criminal cases. – The provisions of Rules 42, 44 to 46 and 48 to 56 relating to procedure in the
Court of Appeals and in the Supreme Court in original and appealed civil cases shall be applied to criminal cases insofar as they are applicable and not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.

There is no basis in law or the rules, therefore, to extend the scope of Rule 47 to criminal cases. As we explained in Macalalag v. Ombudsman, when
there is no law or rule providing for this remedy, recourse to it cannot be allowed x x x. 14

Here, petitioners are invoking the remedy under Rule 47 to assail a decision in a criminal case. Following Bitanga, this Court cannot allow such
recourse, there being no basis in law or in the rules.

In substance, the petition must likewise fail. The trial court which rendered the assailed decision had jurisdiction over the criminal case.

Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action determines
the jurisdiction of the court.15 In this case, at the time of the filing of the information, the applicable law was Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, 16 approved on
August 14, 1981, which pertinently provides:

Section 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the
exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which
shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter.

xxxx

Section 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in criminal cases. — Except in cases falling
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding four years and two months, or a fine of not
more than four thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment, regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the
civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount thereof: Provided, however, That in
offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the imposable fine
does not exceed twenty thousand pesos.

Article 316(2) of the RPC, the provision which penalizes the crime charged in the information, provides that —

Article 316. Other forms of swindling.—The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not less than the value of the
damage caused and not more than three times such value, shall be imposed upon:

xxxx

2. Any person who, knowing that real property is encumbered, shall dispose of the same, although such encumbrance be not recorded.

The penalty for the crime charged in this case is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, which has a duration of 1 month and 1 day to 4
months, and a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than three times such value. Here, as alleged in the information, the
value of the damage caused, or the imposable fine, is ₱12,895.00. Clearly, from a reading of the information, the jurisdiction over the criminal case was
with the RTC and not the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). The MeTC could not have acquired jurisdiction over the criminal action because at the time of
the filing of the information, its jurisdiction was limited to offenses punishable with a fine of not more than ₱4,000.00.17

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.