You are on page 1of 4

Republic of the Philippines of Civil Procedure which have suppletory application to criminal cases.

SUPREME COURT Section 18, Rule 124 thereof, provides: Sec. 18. Application of certain rules
Manila 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
THIRD DIVISION Supreme Court in original and appealed civil cases shall be applied to
criminal cases insofar as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the
G.R. No. 149588 September 29, 2009 provisions of this Rule.
_______________
FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS and CARMELITA C. LLAMAS, Petitioners,
vs. * THIRD DIVISION.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, BRANCH 66 OF THE REGIONAL
229
TRIAL COURT IN MAKATI CITY and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents. VOL. 601, SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 229
Llamas vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 149588. September 29, 2009.*
Remedial Law; Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive
FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS and CARMELITA C. LLAMAS, law, the established rule is that the statute in force at the time of the
petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the court.
BRANCH 66 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN MAKATI Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that
CITY and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. 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
Actions; Criminal Law; Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Annulment of
of the information, the applicable law was Batas Pambansa Bilang 129,
Judgment; Appeals; Procedural Rules and Technicalities; The remedy of
approved on August 14, 1981.
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 PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of
annulment of judgment cannot be availed of in criminal cases, thus Appeals.
Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, limits the scope of the remedy of The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
annulment of judgment to the following: Section 1. Coverage.This Rule
shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final NACHURA, J.:
orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which
the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other In this petition captioned as "Annulment of Judgment and Certiorari, with
appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the Preliminary Injunction," petitioners assail, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the
petitioner. The remedy cannot be resorted to when the RTC judgment being trial courts decision convicting them of "other form of swindling" penalized by
questioned was rendered in a criminal case. The 2000 Revised Rules of Article 316, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Criminal Procedure itself does not permit such recourse, for it excluded
Rule 47 from the enumeration of the provisions of the 1997 Revised Rules
The antecedent facts and proceedings that led to the filing of the instant petition petitioners motion for reconsideration on June 28, 2000,7 the judgment of
are pertinently narrated as follows: conviction became final and executory.

On August 16, 1984, petitioners were charged before the Regional Trial Court With the consequent issuance by the trial court of the April 19, 2001 Warrant of
(RTC) of Makati with, as aforesaid, the crime of "other forms of swindling" in the Arrest,8 the police arrested, on April 27, 2001, petitioner Carmelita C. Llamas for
Information,1 docketed as Criminal Case No. 11787, which reads: 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
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 On July 16, 2001, petitioner Francisco moved for the lifting or recall of the
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and warrant of arrest, raising for the first time the issue that the trial court had no
mutually helping and aiding one another, well knowing that their parcel of land jurisdiction over the offense charged.10
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, There being no action taken by the trial court on the said motion, petitioners
situated at Barrio San Dionisio, Municipality of Paraaque, Metro Manila, was instituted, on September 13, 2001, the instant proceedings for the annulment of
mortgaged to the Rural Bank of Imus, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and the trial and the appellate courts decisions.
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 The Court initially dismissed on technical grounds the petition in the September
P. Avila bought the aforementioned property for the sum of P12,895.00 which 24, 2001 Resolution,11 but reinstated the same, on motion for reconsideration, in
was paid to the accused, to the damage and prejudice of said Conrado P. Avila the October 22, 2001 Resolution.12
in the aforementioned amount of P12,895.00.
After a thorough evaluation of petitioners arguments vis--vis the applicable law
Contrary to law.2 and jurisprudence, the Court denies the petition.

After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its Decision3 on June 30, 1994, finding In People v. Bitanga,13 the Court explained that the remedy of annulment of
petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentencing judgment cannot be availed of in criminal cases, thus
them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for two months and to pay the fine
of P18,085.00 each.
Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, limits the scope of the remedy of
annulment of judgment to the following:
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
Section 1. Coverage. This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of
Resolution,5 the appellate court further denied petitioners motion for
Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional
reconsideration.
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
Assailing the aforesaid issuances of the appellate court, petitioners filed before petitioner.
a1f

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
The remedy cannot be resorted to when the RTC judgment being questioned
petitioners failure to state the material dates. Since it subsequently denied
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 Section 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
enumeration of the provisions of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in criminal cases. Except in cases falling within
which have suppletory application to criminal cases. Section 18, Rule 124 the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the
thereof, provides: Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
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 (1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal
Appeals and in the Supreme Court in original and appealed civil cases shall be ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and
applied to criminal cases insofar as they are applicable and not inconsistent with
the provisions of this Rule. (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with
imprisonment of not exceeding four years and two months, or a fine of
There is no basis in law or the rules, therefore, to extend the scope of Rule 47 to not more than four thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment,
criminal cases. As we explained in Macalalag v. Ombudsman, when there is no regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the
law or rule providing for this remedy, recourse to it cannot be allowed x x x.14 civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective
of kind, nature, value, or amount thereof: Provided, however, That in
Here, petitioners are invoking the remedy under Rule 47 to assail a decision in a offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence they
criminal case. Following Bitanga, this Court cannot allow such recourse, there shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the imposable fine does
being no basis in law or in the rules. not exceed twenty thousand pesos.

In substance, the petition must likewise fail. The trial court which rendered the Article 316(2) of the RPC, the provision which penalizes the crime charged in the
assailed decision had jurisdiction over the criminal case. information, provides that

Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that the Article 316. Other forms of swindling.The penalty of arresto mayor in its
statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action determines the minimum and medium periods and a fine of not less than the value of the
jurisdiction of the court.15 In this case, at the time of the filing of the information, damage caused and not more than three times such value, shall be imposed
the applicable law was Batas Pambansa Bilang 129,16 approved on August 14, upon:
1981, which pertinently provides:
xxxx
Section 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive 2. Any person who, knowing that real property is encumbered, shall dispose of
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except those now falling under the the same, although such encumbrance be not recorded.
exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter
be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter. 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,
xxxx 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.

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA


Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

You might also like