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.

Actions; Criminal Law; Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Annulment of Judgment;

Appeals; Procedural Rules and Technicalities; The remedy of annulment of judgment
cannot be availed of in criminal cases.In People v. Bitanga (525 SCRA 623 [2007]),
the Court explained that the remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be availed of
in criminal cases, thusSection 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.

Remedial Law; Jurisdiction; 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.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. In this case,
at the time of the filing of the information, the applicable law was Batas Pambansa
Bilang 129, approved on August 14, 1981.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

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 courts
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

Paraaque, 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 Paraaque, LRC Record No. N-26926, Case No. 4869, situated at Barrio
San Dionisio, Municipality of Paraaque, 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 P12,895.00 which was paid to the accused,
to the damage and prejudice of said Conrado P. Avila in the aforementioned amount
of P12,895.00.

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
P18,085.00 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.

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--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:

Section1.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 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:

Section20.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

Section32.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

Article316.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 P12,895.00. 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 P4,000.00.17

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Corona,** Brion*** and Peralta, JJ., concur.

Petition denied.

Note.The issue in every petition for annulment of judgment is whether extrinsic

fraud attended the rendition of the assailed decision. Extrinsic fraud refers to any
fraudulent act of the prevailing party in litigation committed outside of the trial of
the case, whereby the defeated party is prevented from fully exhibiting his side of
the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent. Llamas vs. Court
of Appeals, 601 SCRA 228, G.R. No. 149588 September 29, 2009