[G.R. NO.

149588 : September 29, 2009]

FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS and CARMELITA C. LLAMAS, Petitioners, v. 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 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 Decision 3 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 Decision 4 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, 7the 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:
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.

rbl r l l lbrr

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.
xxx
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

cralawlibrary

(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:
xxx
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.