08 Llamas v.

CA
GR. No. 149588 (2009)
J. Nachura / Tita K
Subject Matter: Rule 47
Case Summary:
Petitioners were found guilty of the crime of “other forms of swindling” for selling a parcel of land to Conrado Avila despite their
knowledge that the said land was mortgaged to rural bank. CA affirmed RTC. The said judgment attained finality. Petitioner
Francisco, then instituted proceedings for the annulment of the trial and the appellate courts’ decisions before the SC. WON the SC
can annul the judgment of the RTC and CA, the SC ruled in the negative.

Doctrine/s:
The remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be availed of in criminal cases (People v. Bitanga).

Here, invoking the remedy under Rule 47 to assail a decision in a criminal case. This Court cannot allow such recourse, there being
no basis in law or in the rules.

Action Before SC: “This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court”
Parties:
Petitioner FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS and CARMELITA C. LLAMAS

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

Antecedent Facts:
1. Petitioners were charged before the RTC with the crime of “other forms of swindling”. The Information alleges that
petitioners sold a parcel of land to Conrado Avila, despite their knowlegde that it was mortgaged to the Rural Bank of Imus,
hence falsely representing the same to be free from all liens and encumbrances.

2. RTC found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt which was affirmed by the CA. Petitioners filed before the SC a
petition for review before the SC but this was denied for their failure to state the material dates. MR was subsequently
denied. Thus, said judgment became final and executory.
3. RTC issued a Warrant of Arrest and the police arrested petitioner Carmelita C. Llamas. The police failed to arrest petitioner
Francisco R. Llamas because he was nowhere to be found.
4. 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.
5. No action was taken by the trial court on the said motion.
SC
1. Petitioners instituted proceedings for the annulment of the trial and the appellate courts’ decisions.
Issues:
1. WON the judgment of the trial court and the CA can be annulled. (NO)

Ratio:

NO – The judgment of the trial court and CA CANNOT be annulled.

 The remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be availed of in criminal cases (People v. Bitanga).
 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 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 - 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.
o Here, petitioners are invoking the remedy under Rule 47 to assail a decision in a criminal case.
o Following Bitanga, this Court cannot allow such recourse, there being no basis in law or in the rules.
Dispositive: Wherefore, premises considered, the petition is DENIED