88. Llamas v. CA, et al., G.R. No.

149588, September 29, 2009

FACTS: On August 16, 1984, petitioners were charged before the RTC of Makati with the crime of
"other forms of swindling" penalized by Article 316, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
They were subsequently found guilty beyond reasonable ground, which was affirmed by the Court
of Appeals. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration that was also denied.

Petitioners filed a petition for review, rejected by the Supreme Court for failure to state material
dates. Supreme Court denied subsequent motion for reconsideration; judgment of conviction final
and executory.

Petitioner Carmelita C. Llamas was arrested by the police but they failed to arrest petitioner
Francisco R. Llamas because he was nowhere to be found. 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 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,
but reinstated the same, on motion for reconsideration, in the October 22, 2001 Resolution.

ISSUE: WON the petitioners can institute an annulment of the RTC and CA since the Courts did not
take any action when the petitioners raise the issue of jurisdiction

RULING: NO. The Court cannot allow such recourse, there being no basis in law or in the rules. In
People v. Bitanga the Court explained that the remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be
availed of in criminal cases. Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court , limits the scope of the remedy
of annulment of judgment. The remedy cannot be resorted to when the RTC judgment being
questioned was rendered in a criminal case. Further, 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.