FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS and CARMELITA C.

LLAMAS, Petitioners, -
versus - THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, BRANCH 66 OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OFMAKATI CITY and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
G.R. No. 149588, August 16, 2010
NACHURA, J.:

FACTS: On November 1978, Spouses Llamas sell a parcel of land located at

Barrio San Dionisio, Municipality of Paranaque, Metro Manila, knowingly that
it was mortgaged to the Rural Bank of Imus, to one Conrado P. Avila for the
sum of P12, 895.00. Petitioners were charged before the RTC of Makati with
the crime of other forms of swindling. The RTC rendered its Decision 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 affirmed the
decision of the trial court and denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners filed their petition for review before the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court, denied the same for petitioner’s failure to state the material
dates. Since it subsequently denied petitioners motion for reconsideration, the
judgment of conviction became final and executory.
The trial court issued a Warrant of Arrest, 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, petitioners instituted the
instant proceedings for the annulment of the trial and the appellate courts
decisions. The Court held that, following the ruling in People v. Bitanga, the
remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be availed of in criminal cases. The
Court likewise rejected petitioners contention that the trial court had no
jurisdiction over the case.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: W/N THE RESPONDENT COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER
THE CASE.

HELD: YES. The court ruled that petitioners took many procedural missteps
in this case, all of which could serve as enough basis to dismiss the present motion

for reconsideration. However, considering petitioners advanced age, the length

of time this case has been pending, and the imminent loss of personal liberty

as a result of petitioners conviction, the Court resolves to grant pro hac

vice the motion for reconsideration. This Court has suspended the application

of technical rules of procedure where matters of life, liberty, honor or property,

among other instances, are at stake.[6] It has allowed some meritorious cases

to proceed despite inherent procedural defects and lapses on the principle that

rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of

justice. The strict and rigid application of rules that tend to frustrate rather

than promote substantial justice must always be avoided. It is far better and

more prudent for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties

a review of the case to attain the ends of justice, rather than dispose of the
case on technicality and cause grave injustice to the parties.[7]

WHEREFORE, the court is ACQUITTING petitioners of the crime

charged on the ground of the prosecutions failure to prove their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.