G.R. No. 149588 - Llamas vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 149588)

Key Dates

Alleged commission of offense: on or about November 20, 1978.
Information filed: August 16, 1984 (Criminal Case No. 11787, RTC Makati).
RTC decision convicting petitioners: June 30, 1994.
Court of Appeals decision affirming: February 19, 1999; motion for reconsideration denied December 22, 1999.
Petition for review to the Supreme Court filed: February 11, 2000 (G.R. No. 141208) and denied March 13, 2000; motion for reconsideration denied June 28, 2000 (judgment became final and executory).
Warrant of arrest issued: April 19, 2001; arrest of Carmelita C. Llamas: April 27, 2001.
Motion to recall warrant and jurisdictional challenge first raised by Francisco: July 16, 2001.
Petition for annulment of judgment and certiorari filed in the Supreme Court: September 13, 2001.
Supreme Court resolutions on petition: initially dismissed September 24, 2001; reinstated October 22, 2001.
Supreme Court decision (denying petition): September 29, 2009.

Applicable Law and Procedural Rules

Constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable to this decision given the decision date).
Statutory provisions governing jurisdiction: Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (as in force at the time of filing), particularly Sections 20 and 32 regarding jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Courts.
Substantive criminal law: Article 316(2) of the Revised Penal Code (other forms of swindling), which penalizes disposal of encumbered real property by a person who knows of the encumbrance.
Rules on remedies and procedural scope: Rule 47, Rules of Court (Annulment of Judgment), and the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically Section 18, Rule 124, which lists civil procedure rules with suppletory application to criminal cases and excludes Rule 47.

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Petitioners sought annulment of judgment and certiorari with preliminary injunction to challenge the trial court’s conviction on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The petition invoked Rule 47 as the basis to annul final decisions in their criminal case, effectively attempting to question the jurisdiction of the RTC after finality of conviction and imposition of sentence.

Core Legal Issue

Whether the petitioners could invoke Rule 47 (annulment of judgment) in a criminal case to attack the jurisdiction of the trial court and thereby annul the conviction, and whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the offense charged under the law as it stood at the time the information was filed.

Analysis — Availability of Rule 47 in Criminal Cases

The Court applied binding precedent that Rule 47’s remedy of annulment of judgment is limited to civil actions of Regional Trial Courts and cannot be invoked to attack judgments in criminal cases. The 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure explicitly omitted Rule 47 from the list of civil procedure rules that apply suppletorily to criminal cases (Section 18, Rule 124). The Court relied on People v. Bitanga and related authorities to conclude that, in the absence of a law or rule providing for annulment in criminal cases, the remedy is unavailable. Consequently, petitioners could not resort to Rule 47 to attack their criminal conviction.

Analysis — Jurisdiction of the Trial Court

The Court reiterated the established rule that jurisdiction is determined by the statute in force at the time of commencement of the action. At the time the information was filed (August 16, 1984), Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 governed court jurisdiction in criminal cases. Under BP 129, Regional Trial Courts exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of another tribunal; Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts had exclusive original jurisdiction only over offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding four years and two months or fines not exceeding P4,000.00, subject to exceptions.

Article 316(2) of the Revised Penal Code, the provision under which petitioners were charged, prescribes a penalty of a

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 149588)

Nature and Caption of the Petition

Petition captioned as "Annulment of Judgment and Certiorari, with Preliminary Injunction."
Petitioners: Francisco R. Llamas and Carmelita C. Llamas.
Respondents: The Honorable Court of Appeals, Branch 66 of the Regional Trial Court in Makati City, and the People of the Philippines.
Relief sought: Annulment of the trial court's and Court of Appeals' decisions, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and ancillary reliefs as captioned.

Antecedent Facts (Allegations in the Information)

Date of alleged offense: "on or about the 20th day of November, 1978."
Place of alleged offense: Municipality of Parañaque, Metro Manila, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Substance of allegation: Petitioners, "conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another," allegedly sold a parcel of land known as Lot No. 11, Block No. 6 of Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd 67036, Cadastral Survey of Parañaque, LRC Record No. N-26926, Case No. 4869, situated at Barrio San Dionisio, Municipality of Parañaque.
Specific allegation of deceit: Petitioners allegedly "well knowing that their parcel of land ... 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."
Consideration alleged: Conrado P. Avila allegedly bought the property for the sum of P12,895.00 which was paid to the accused.
Alleged damage: Conrado P. Avila was alleged to have been damaged and prejudiced in the amount of P12,895.00.
Crime charged: "Other forms of swindling" as penalized by Article 316, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Procedural History — Trial and Appeals

Information filed / Charge: Petitioners were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati; case docketed as Criminal Case No. 11787.
Trial court decision: After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its Decision on June 30, 1994, finding petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
Sentence by RTC: Each petitioner sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of P18,085.00 each.
Appeal to Court of Appeals: Petitioners appealed; the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision on February 19, 1999 (CA‑G.R. CR No. 18270), affirming the RTC decision. Decision penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño‑Hormachuelos, with Associate Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero and Teodoro P. Regino concurring.
Court of Appeals motion for reconsideration: Denied in a December 22, 1999 Resolution.
First Supreme Court petition: Petitioners filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court on February 11, 2000, docketed as G.R. No. 141208.
Supreme Court action on that petition: Denied on March 13, 2000, for petitioners' failure to state the material dates. Denial of motion for reconsideration on June 28, 2000.
Finality of conviction: With denial of reconsideration, the judgment of conviction became final and executory.
Warrant of arrest: Trial court issued a Warrant of Arrest on April 19, 2001.
Arrests executed: Police arrested petitioner Carmelita C. Llamas on April 27, 2001, to serve her two‑month jail term; police failed to arrest petitioner Francisco R. Llamas because he was "nowhere to be found."
First assertion of jurisdictional defect: 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.
Filing of present petition: Petitioners instituted the present proceedings for annulment of the trial and appellate courts' decisions on September 13, 2001.
Procedural disposition by Supreme Court: The petition was initially dismissed on technical grounds in the September 24, 2001 Resolution, but reinstated on motion for reconsideration in the October 22, 2001 Resolution.
Final disposition in present case: The Supreme Court, through Justice Garcia, denied the petition in the decision promulgated September 29, 2009 (G.R. No. 149588).

Core Issue Presented

Whether the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 may be invoked to attack a judgment rendered in a criminal case — specifically, whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the criminal case charged and whether petitioners may avail themselves of Rule 47 to annul the judgments in their criminal case.

Petitioners’ Main Argument (as presented)

Petitioners assail the trial court's decision convicting them of "other forms of swindling" on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, seeking annulment of the trial and appellate courts' decisions on that basis.
The issue of jurisdiction was first raised by petitioner Francisco in his July 16, 2001 motion to lift or recall the warrant of arrest.

Supreme Court’s Threshold Legal Analysis — Availability of Rule 47 in Criminal Cases

Governing rule: Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court (coverage) limits the remedy of annulment by the Court of Appeals to judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which ordinary remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.
Principal holding from People v. Bitanga: The remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be availed of in criminal cases; Rule 47 is limited to civil actions. The 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure excluded Rule 47 from the enumeration of 1997 Re