Llamas vs CA

G.R. No. 149588, September 29, 2009 LLAMAS, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents. FACTS: On August 16, 1984, petitioners were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati with the crime of "other forms of swindling". After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its Decision finding petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. Assailing the aforesaid issuances of the appellate court, petitioners filed before this Court their petition for review. The Court, however, denied the same for petitioners’ failure to state the material dates. Since it subsequently denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, the judgment of conviction became final and executory. With the consequent issuance by the trial court of the Warrant of Arrest, the police arrested 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. 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. There being no action taken by the trial court on the said motion, petitioners instituted the instant proceedings for the annulment of the trial and the appellate courts’ decisions. ISSUE: Whether or not the remedy of annulment of the Trial Court’s judgment under Rule 47 can be availed of in criminal cases HELD: After a thorough evaluation of petitioners’ arguments vis-à-vis the applicable law and jurisprudence, the Court denies the petition. In People v. Bitanga, 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. 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. 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.