ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 149588. September 24, 2001]

LLAMAS et al. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 24 2001.

G.R. No. 149588(Francisco R. Llamas and Carmelita C. Llamas vs. People of the Philippines.)

At bar is a Petition for Annulment of Judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals convicting petitioners of the crime of "other forms of swindling" penalized by Article 316, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

On June 30, 1994, the regional trial court rendered judgment finding petitioners guilty of the crime of other forms of swindling as defined by Article 316, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code for having sold a parcel of land situated at Barrio San Dionisio, Para�aque, Metro Manila, representing the same to be free from all liens and encumbrances on November 28, 1978 notwithstanding the fact that at that time, there was still an existing mortgage thereon in favor of the Imus Rural Bank. Consequently, petitioners were sentenced to suffer an imprisonment term of 2 months and to pay a fine of P8,085.00 each.

Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied.

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

On December 22, 1999, the appellate court issued a resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

On February 11, 2000, petitioners filed a petition for review before this Court and the same was denied in the resolution dated March 13, 2000 for failure to state the material date of receipt of the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals.

Consequently, the subject judgment of conviction became final and executory and a warrant of arrest dated April 19, 2001 was issued. Finally, on April 22, 2001, petitioner Carmelita C. Llamas was arrested and has since served her 2-month jail term.

Unwilling to suffer the consequences of his crime, petitioner who happens to be a lawyer filed the instant petition seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the subject warrant of arrest and any alias warrant that may have been issued, contending that the same are null and void for having been issued pursuant to a null and void judgment for want of jurisdiction. Petitioner argues that the penalty for the offense of "other forms of swindling" is arresto mayor and fine, hence, it is the municipal trial court and not the regional trial court which is vested with jurisdiction to try the same.

The petition must fail.

The active participation of the party against whom the action was brought, coupled with his failure to object to the jurisdiction of the court or quasi-judicial body where the action is pending, is tantamount to an invocation of that jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar said party from later on impugning the court or body's jurisdiction (ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union Members vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, 304 SCRA 489 [1999]).

In the case at bar, petitioners actively defended themselves before the regional trial court then appealed to the Court of Appeals and even went up to this Court via a petition for review on certiorari. If that is not active participation, then what is. Verily, not in a single instance before the filing of the instant petition did petitioners question the regional trial court's jurisdiction.

While an order or decision rendered without jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a party's active participation in the proceedings in the tribunal which rendered the order or decision will bar such party from attacking its jurisdiction (Salva vs. Court of Appeals, 304 SCRA 632 [1999]).

Estoppel by laches, or the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warrants a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it (Ochagabia vs. Court of Appeals, 304 SCRA 587 [1999]). This is so in the case at bar. This is not to say that in point of fact the decision sought to be set aside is the affirmance decision of the Court of Appeals, and surely, petitioners must be aware that there is no procedure for such action.

Then too, the petition suffers from a number of fatal technical defects such as that there is no statement as to the timeliness of the filing of the action, and the assailed decision and the denied resolution of the Court of Appeals were merely certified by an "Officer-in-Charge" with no official designation.

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE