1 | Page

G.R. No. 149588 September 29, 2009

FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS and CARMELITA C. LLAMAS, Petitioners,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, BRANCH 66 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN
MAKATI CITY and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

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 courts 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 Decision3 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 Decision4 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, 2000,7 the judgment of conviction became final and executory.
2 | Page

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.a1f

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.
3 | Page

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.

xxxx

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

(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:

xxxx

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
4 | Page

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA