THIRD DIVISION
|
FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS and
CARMELITA C. LLAMAS, Petitioners, - versus - THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, BRANCH 66 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 149588
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, NACHURA, BRION,** and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: September
29, 2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
In
this petition captioned as “Annulment of Judgment and Certiorari, with Preliminary Injunction,” petitioners assail, on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the trial court’s decision convicting them
of “other form of swindling” penalized by Article 316, paragraph 2, of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The antecedent facts and proceedings
that led to the filing of the instant petition are pertinently narrated as
follows:
On
August 16, 1984, petitioners were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of
That on or about the 20th day of
November, 1978, in the municipality of Parañaque, Metro Manila, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one
another, well knowing that their parcel of land known 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, was mortgaged to the Rural Bank of
Imus, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell said property
to one Conrado P. Avila, falsely representing the same to be free from all
liens and encumbrances whatsoever, and said Conrado P. Avila bought the
aforementioned property for the sum of P12,895.00 which was paid to the
accused, to the damage and prejudice of said Conrado P. Avila in the
aforementioned amount of P12,895.00.
Contrary
to law.[2]
After
trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its Decision[3] 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 the fine of P18,085.00 each.
On
appeal, the Court of Appeals, in its February 19, 1999 Decision[4] in
CA-G.R. CR No. 18270, affirmed the decision of the trial court. In its December
22, 1999 Resolution,[5]
the appellate court further denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Assailing
the aforesaid issuances of the appellate court, petitioners filed before this
Court, on February 11, 2000, their petition for review, docketed as G.R. No.
141208.[6]
The Court, however, on March 13, 2000, denied the same for petitioners’ failure
to state the material dates. Since it subsequently denied petitioners’ motion
for reconsideration on June 28, 2000,[7]
the judgment of conviction became final and executory.
With the consequent issuance by the
trial court of the April 19, 2001 Warrant of Arrest,[8]
the police arrested, on April 27, 2001, 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.[9]
On July 16, 2001, 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.[10]
There being no action taken by the
trial court on the said motion, petitioners instituted, on September 13, 2001,
the instant proceedings for the annulment of the trial and the appellate courts’
decisions.
The Court initially dismissed on technical
grounds the petition in the September 24, 2001 Resolution,[11]
but reinstated the same, on motion for reconsideration, in the October 22, 2001
Resolution.[12]
After a thorough evaluation of
petitioners’ arguments vis-à-vis the applicable law and jurisprudence, the
Court denies the petition.
In People v. Bitanga,[13]
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 x x x.[14]
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.
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.[15]
In this case, at the time of the filing of the information, the applicable law
was Batas Pambansa Bilang 129,[16]
approved on August 14, 1981, which pertinently provides:
Section 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body, except those now falling under the exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken cognizance of by the latter.
x x x x
Section 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in criminal cases. — Except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment of not exceeding four years and two months, or a fine of not more than four thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment, regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence they shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the imposable fine does not exceed twenty thousand pesos.
Article 316(2) of the RPC, the
provision which penalizes the crime charged in the information, provides that —
Article 316. Other forms of swindling.—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, shall be imposed upon:
x x x x
2. Any person who, knowing that real property
is encumbered, shall dispose of the same, although such encumbrance be not
recorded.
The
penalty for the crime charged in this case is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, which has a
duration of 1 month and 1 day to 4 months,
and a fine of not less than the
value of the damage caused and not more than three times such value. Here, as
alleged in the information, the value of the damage caused, or the imposable
fine, is P12,895.00. Clearly, from a reading of the information, the
jurisdiction over the criminal case was with the RTC and not the Metropolitan
Trial Court (MeTC). 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 P4,000.00.[17]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
* In lieu of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per Raffle dated September 22, 2009.
** In lieu of Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario per Raffle dated March 18, 2009.
[1] Rollo, pp. 77-78.
[2]
[3]
[4] Penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos, with Associate Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero and Teodoro P. Regino, concurring; id. at 27-33.
[5]
[6] Rollo, pp. 7, 148.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] G.R. No. 159222, June 26, 2007, 525 SCRA 623.
[14]
[15] Escobal v. Justice Garchitorena, 466 Phil. 625, 635 (2004); Yu Oh v. Court of Appeals, 451 Phil. 380, 387 (2003); Alarilla v. Sandiganbayan, 393 Phil. 143, 155 (2000).
[16] The law has subsequently been amended by Republic Act No. 7691 on March 25, 1994.
[17] Palana v. People, G.R. No. 149995, September 28, 2007, 534 SCRA 296, 303.