Llamas vs. Court of Appeals

The remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is confined to judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts and may not be invoked to assail a final judgment of conviction in a criminal case; jurisdiction over a criminal case, in turn, is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action, measured by the penalty imposable and the fine alleged in the information.

Petitioners Francisco R. Llamas and Carmelita C. Llamas are spouses who, at the time material to the case, owned a parcel of land in Parañaque, Metro Manila, which they sold to Conrado P. Avila. The offense charged arose under Article 316, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes the disposal of encumbered real property by a person knowing of the encumbrance even if it be unrecorded. Jurisdiction over the offense was governed by Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, approved on August 14, 1981, which was subsequently amended by Republic Act No. 7691 on March 25, 1994, and which fixed the respective original criminal jurisdictions of the Regional Trial Courts and the metropolitan, municipal, and municipal circuit trial courts.

On November 20, 1978, petitioners Francisco R. Llamas and Carmelita C. Llamas, spouses, sold to Conrado P. Avila a parcel of land identified as Lot No. 11, Block No. 6 of the 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, Metro Manila, for the sum of ₱12,895.00. At the time of the sale, the property was mortgaged to the Rural Bank of Imus.

On August 16, 1984, an Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, docketed as Criminal Case No. 11787, charging the spouses with "other forms of swindling" under Article 316, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that the accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another, well knowing that their parcel of land was mortgaged to the Rural Bank of Imus, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sold the property to Conrado P. Avila, falsely representing the same to be free from all liens and encumbrances, and that Avila bought the property for ₱12,895.00, to his damage and prejudice in that amount.

After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its Decision 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 a fine of ₱18,085.00 each. On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in its February 19, 1999 Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 18270, affirmed the decision of the trial court, and in its December 22, 1999 Resolution further denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Petitioners then filed before the Supreme Court on February 11, 2000 a petition for review, docketed as G.R. No. 141208, which was denied on March 13, 2000 for failure to state the material dates; the denial of their motion for reconsideration on June 28, 2000 rendered the judgment of conviction final and executory.

With the consequent issuance by the trial court of the April 19, 2001 Warrant of Arrest, the police arrested petitioner Carmelita C. Llamas on April 27, 2001 to serve her two-month jail term, but failed to arrest petitioner Francisco R. Llamas because he was nowhere to be found. On July 16, 2001, 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. No action having been taken by the trial court on the motion, petitioners instituted on September 13, 2001 the instant proceedings for the annulment of the trial and the appellate courts' decisions.

• Lack of Jurisdiction: Petitioners assailed the trial court's decision convicting them of "other forms of swindling" on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged, an issue petitioner Francisco R. Llamas raised for the first time in his July 16, 2001 motion for the lifting or recall of the warrant of arrest.
• Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47: Petitioners invoked the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court to annul the decisions of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, their judgment of conviction having already become final and executory.

• Availability of Annulment of Judgment in Criminal Cases: Whether the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court may be availed of to assail a final judgment of conviction in a criminal case.
• Jurisdiction of the Trial Court: Whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over the offense charged under Article 316, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, in light of the penalty imposable and the fine alleged in the Information.

• Availability of Annulment of Judgment in Criminal Cases: No. Rule 47, Section 1 limits the remedy to judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts, and the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure excluded Rule 47 from the civil procedure rules given suppletory application to criminal cases.
• Jurisdiction of the Trial Court: Yes. Jurisdiction is determined by the statute in force at the commencement of the action; under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, the penalty imposable under Article 316(2) and the fine of ₱12,895.00 alleged in the Information placed the offense within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.

• Availability of Annulment of Judgment in Criminal Cases: Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court limits the scope of the remedy of annulment of judgment to 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. 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 that 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 that Rule. There is thus no basis in law or in the rules to extend the scope of Rule 47 to criminal cases, and, as explained in Macalalag vs. Ombudsman, where there is no law or rule providing for a remedy, recourse to it cannot be allowed. Following People vs. Bitanga, the Court could not allow petitioners' recourse to Rule 47 to assail a decision in a criminal case.

• Jurisdiction of the Trial Court: 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. At the time of the filing of the Information, the applicable law was Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, approved on August 14, 1981. Under Section 20 thereof, Regional Trial Courts exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except those falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Under Section 32 thereof, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding four years and two months, or a fine of not more than ₱4,000.00, or both such fine and imprisonment, regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties. Article 316(2) of the Revised Penal Code, the provision penalizing the crime charged, imposes the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods — a duration of one month and one day to four months — and a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than three times such value. As alleged in the Information, the value of the damage caused, or the imposable fine, is ₱12,895.00. From a reading of the Information, therefore, jurisdiction over the criminal case was with the RTC and not the Metropolitan Trial Court; 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 ₱4,000.00.

• Annulment of judgment is not available in criminal cases — Rule 47, Section 1 of the Rules of Court confines the remedy of annulment of judgment to 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. The 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure reinforced this limitation by excluding Rule 47 from the enumeration in Section 18, Rule 124 of the civil procedure provisions (Rules 42, 44 to 46, and 48 to 56) that are suppletorily applicable to criminal cases. Because no law or rule authorizes the remedy in criminal cases, a final judgment of conviction cannot be annulled under Rule 47.
• Jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the commencement of the action — Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law, and the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the court. The Court applied this rule by measuring the trial court's jurisdiction against Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, approved on August 14, 1981, the law in force when the Information was filed on August 16, 1984, notwithstanding its subsequent amendment by Republic Act No. 7691 on March 25, 1994.
• Criminal jurisdiction is determined by the penalty imposable and the fine alleged in the information — The court's original jurisdiction over a criminal offense is fixed by the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged and by the amount of the fine alleged in the information. Here, the imposable penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods and the fine of ₱12,895.00 alleged in the Information placed the offense beyond the MeTC's jurisdictional ceiling of a ₱4,000.00 fine, and within the RTC's exclusive original jurisdiction.
• A jurisdictional defect may be raised at any stage, but it cannot revive a final judgment through a remedy the rules do not allow — Although the trial court's lack of jurisdiction over the offense was raised for the first time only in the July 16, 2001 motion to lift the warrant of arrest, the Court resolved the jurisdictional question on the merits and found jurisdiction to have been properly vested in the RTC; the finality of the conviction was not disturbed.

• "The remedy cannot be resorted to when the RTC judgment being questioned was rendered in a criminal case." — This is the ratio of the first holding: it states the categorical rule that Rule 47 annulment of judgment is unavailable against a judgment of conviction, foreclosing petitioners' chosen remedy.
• "There is no basis in law or the rules, therefore, to extend the scope of Rule 47 to criminal cases." — This passage supplies the doctrinal justification for the first holding, anchoring the exclusion of Rule 47 in the suppletory-application clause of Section 18, Rule 124 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
• "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." — This is the canonical formulation of the temporal rule on jurisdiction applied by the Court in rejecting the jurisdictional challenge, and it is the proposition for which the Court cited Escobal vs. Justice Garchitorena, Yu Oh vs. Court of Appeals, and Alarilla vs. Sandiganbayan.
• "Clearly, from a reading of the information, the jurisdiction over the criminal case was with the RTC and not the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC)." — This is the conclusion of the jurisdictional analysis, resting on the arresto mayor penalty under Article 316(2) and the ₱12,895.00 fine alleged, which exceeded the MeTC's then ₱4,000.00 jurisdictional ceiling.

• People vs. Bitanga, G.R. No. 159222, June 26, 2007, 525 SCRA 623 — Controlling precedent. The Court relied on it for the holding that the remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be availed of in criminal cases, quoting its exposition of Rule 47, Section 1 and Section 18, Rule 124 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
• Macalalag vs. Ombudsman — Cited for the principle that when there is no law or rule providing for a remedy, recourse to it cannot be allowed; invoked to reinforce the unavailability of Rule 47 in criminal cases.
• Escobal vs. Justice Garchitorena, 466 Phil. 625, 635 (2004); Yu Oh vs. Court of Appeals, 451 Phil. 380, 387 (2003); Alarilla vs. Sandiganbayan, 393 Phil. 143, 155 (2000) — Cited collectively for the rule that the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the court, the rule applied in measuring the RTC's jurisdiction against Batas Pambansa Bilang 129.
• Palana vs. People, G.R. No. 149995, September 28, 2007, 534 SCRA 296, 303 — Cited in support of the proposition that 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 ₱4,000.00.

• Section 1, Rule 47, Rules of Court — Limits the annulment of judgment by the Court of Appeals to 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. The Court held that this coverage provision excludes criminal cases, defeating petitioners' recourse to the remedy.
• Section 18, Rule 124, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that 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 that Rule. Because Rule 47 was omitted from the enumeration, the Court held that there is no basis in law or in the rules to extend Rule 47 to criminal cases.
• Section 20, Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 — Vests in the Regional Trial Courts exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except those falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. This provision supplied the basis for holding that the RTC of Makati properly took cognizance of Criminal Case No. 11787.
• Section 32, Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 — Vests in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts 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, or both. The Court used this ceiling to demonstrate that the MeTC could not have acquired jurisdiction over the offense charged.
• Article 316, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code — Penalizes "other forms of swindling," specifically the disposal by any person, knowing that real property is encumbered, of the same although such encumbrance be not recorded, with 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. The imposable penalty of one month and one day to four months, together with the ₱12,895.00 fine alleged, placed the offense within the RTC's jurisdiction.
• Republic Act No. 7691 — Noted in the decision as having amended Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 on March 25, 1994; its amendment did not govern, because the applicable law is that in force at the time of the commencement of the action.

• Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Associate Justice (Chairperson, Third Division)
• Renato C. Corona, Associate Justice (in lieu of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per Raffle dated September 22, 2009)
• Arturo D. Brion, Associate Justice (in lieu of Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, per Raffle dated March 18, 2009)
• Diosdado M. Peralta, Associate Justice