Continuing Crime (People of the Philippines vs Homo, June 6, 2009)

A continued (continuous or continuing) crime is defined as a single crime, consisting of a series

of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution. Although there is a series of acts, there is
only one crime committed; hence, only one penalty shall be imposed.
A continuing offense is a continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set on foot by a single
impulse and operated by an unintermittent force, however long a time it may occupy.
Akin to the extant case is that of People v. De la Cruz, wherein the robbery that took place in
several houses belonging to different persons, when not absolutely unconnected, was held not
to be taken as separate and distinct offenses. They formed instead, component parts of the
general plan to despoil all those within the vicinity. In this case, the Solicitor General argued
that the [appellant] had committed eight different robberies, because the evidence shows
distinct and different acts of spoilation in different houses, with several victimized persons. The
Highest Tribunal, however, ruled that the perpetrated acts were not entirely distinct and
unconnected from one another. Thus, the single offense or crime.

Requisites of Continuing Crime (People of the Philippines vs Ledesma, September 29, 1976)
1. Plurality of acts performed separately during a period of time;
2. Unity of penal provision infringed upon or violated;
3. Unity of criminal intent which means that two or more violations of the same penal provision
are united on one and the same intent leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose
or claim

Jurisdiction over Continuing Crimes (San Beda Law Memory Aid 2013 / UST Golden Notes
2011)
Continuing offenses are consummated in one place, yet by the nature of the offense, the
violation of the law is deemed continuing (e.g. estafa and libel). As such, the courts of the
territories where the essential ingredients of the crime took place have concurrent jurisdiction.
But the court which first acquires jurisdiction excludes the other courts.

Jurisdiction over Continuing Crimes (Dina Tuzon vs Hon. Cesar Cruz, August 28, 1975)
In transitory or continuing offenses in which some acts material and essential to the crime and
requisite to its consummation occur in one province and some in another, the court of either
province has jurisdiction to try the case, it being understood that the first court taking
cognizance of the case will exclude the others (4 Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court,
1970 Ed., pp. 61-62).