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

PETITIONERS
RESPONDENTS

Petition for Annulment of Judgment and Certiorari, with

Preliminary Injunction
Francisco R. Llamas and Carmelita C. Llamas
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 Court 1, 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 Procedure 2 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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.