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 Courts judgment under Rule 47 can be
availed of in criminal cases

HELD:
After a thorough evaluation of petitioners arguments vis--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.