People v. Llamas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Francisco R. Llamas and Carmelita C. Llamas were charged with "other forms of swindling" under Article 316, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The Information alleged that on November 20, 1978, in Parañaque, Metro Manila, the petitioners, knowing that their parcel of land was mortgaged to the Rural Bank of Imus, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sold the said property to Conrado P. Avila, falsely representing it to be free from all liens and encumbrances. Avila purchased the property for ₱12,895.00, to his damage and prejudice. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati rendered a Decision on June 30, 1994, finding the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing them to two months imprisonment and a fine of ₱18,085.00 each. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision on February 19, 1999, and denied their motion for reconsideration on December 22, 1999. Petitioners' subsequent petition for review before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 141208) was denied on March 13, 2000, for failure to state material dates, and their motion for reconsideration was denied on June 28, 2000, rendering the judgment of conviction final and executory. The Petition: Following the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest and the arrest of Carmelita C. Llamas, Francisco R. Llamas moved for the recall of the warrant, raising for the first time the issue of the trial court's lack of jurisdiction. Subsequently, petitioners filed the instant petition for annulment of the trial and appellate courts' decisions, assailing them on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is available in criminal cases. Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) had jurisdiction over the offense charged, "other forms of swindling" under Article 316(2) of the Revised Penal Code, at the time the information was filed.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Supreme Court held that the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is not available in criminal cases. Furthermore, the RTC had jurisdiction over the criminal case filed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the availability of annulment of judgment in criminal cases: The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court limits the remedy of annulment of judgment to civil actions. The 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure also excludes Rule 47 from the provisions of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure that have suppletory application to criminal cases. Therefore, there is no basis in law or rules to extend the scope of Rule 47 to criminal cases. The Court cited People v. Bitanga and Macalalag v. Ombudsman in support of this ruling. Resorting to this remedy in a criminal case cannot be allowed as it is not provided for by law or rules. On the jurisdiction of the RTC: The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law and is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. At the time of the filing of the information, Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1981) was the applicable law. Section 20 of BP 129 grants RTCs exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any other court. Article 316(2) of the RPC, the provision penalizing the crime charged, provides for a penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods (1 month and 1 day to 4 months) and a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused (₱12,895.00) and not more than three times such value. Under Section 32(2) of BP 129, Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs) had exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding four years and two months, or a fine of not more than ₱4,000.00. Since the imposable fine in this case exceeded ₱4,000.00, the jurisdiction properly belonged to the RTC and not the MeTC. Therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction over the criminal case.
Main Doctrine
The remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is not available in criminal cases, as the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure do not permit such recourse. Jurisdiction over a criminal case is determined by the statute in force at the time of the filing of the information.