• Following Bitanga, this Court cannot allow such recourse, there being no basis in
LLAMAS v. CA law or in the rules.
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 aarmed decision of the trial court, and on 22
December 1999 denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration
• 11 February 2000: Petitioners cled 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 cnal
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 crst time the issue that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the ogense 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.
• 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 cne of
not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than three times such value.
Here, the imposable cne is P12,895.00
1 Section 1. Coverage. — This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or cnal 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 ProcedureApplication 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.x x x x 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 ogenses punishable with imprisonment of not
exceeding four years and two months, or a cne of not more than four thousand pesos, or both such cne and
imprisonment, regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such
ogenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount thereof: Provided, however, That in
ogenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where
the imposable cne does not exceed twenty thousand pesos.
• The MeTC could not have acquired jurisdiction over the criminal action because
at the time of the cling of the information, its jurisdiction was limited to ogenses DECISION.
punishable with a cne of not more than P4,000.00. Petition DENIED.