Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52952:gr-149588-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:10:50+00:00

Document:
FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS and CARMELITA C. LLAMAS, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, BRANCH 66 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN MAKATI CITY and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
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).
That on or about the 20th day of November, 1978, in the municipality of ParaÃ±aque, 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 ParaÃ±aque, LRC Record No. N-26926, Case No. 4869, situated at Barrio San Dionisio, Municipality of ParaÃ±aque, 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.
After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its Decision3 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 Decision4 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.
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.
After a thorough evaluation of petitioners' arguments vis - Ã -vis the applicable law and jurisprudence, the Court denies the petition.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
* 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.
4 Penned by Associate Justice Portia AliÃ±o-Hormachuelos, with Associate Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero and Teodoro P. Regino, concurring; id. at 27-33.
6 Rollo, pp. 7, 148.
13 G.R. No. 159222, June 26, 2007, 525 SCRA 623.
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.

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.