LLAMAS vs CA

Facts: Petitioners assail the conviction before the CA when it affirmed the decision of the RTC of Makati
with the crime of other forms of swindling, as charged in the complaint on the ground of falsely
representing that a parcel of land which was mortgage to the Rural Bank of Imus free from all liens and
encumbrances when Llamas sold the land in question to Conrado Avila. Then, a warrant of arrest was
issued at the RTC to be served to Carmelita Llamas to serve for an imprisonment of 2 months term.
Francisco Llamas then moved for the lifting or recall of the warrant of arrest and raised for the first time
the issue over the jurisdiction of the RTC on the offense charged. Due to the inaction of the trial court,
the petitioners moved for the instant proceeding for the annulment of the trial and the appellate court
decisions.

Issue: Whether or not the remedy of the annulment of judgement may be availed of in criminal cases?

Held: No. Petition Denied.

Sec. 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of court, limits the scope of the remedy of annulment by the Court of
Appeals of judgement or final orders and resolution in civil actions of the RTC 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 of annulment of judgement cannot be resorted when the RTC judgment is being questioned
was rendered in a criminal case. The rules excluded rule 47 from the enumeration relating to the
procedure in the CA and SC in original and appealed civil cases shall be applied to criminal cases insofar
as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of the rules. Hence, the petitioners
invoking rule 47 to assail a decision in a criminal case is inappropriate there being no basis in law and
inconsistent in the rules.