IX.

PENALTIES

D. Application for Penalties

3. Continuing Crimes/Delito Continuado/Transitory Crimes/Continued Crimes

SANTIAGO vs. GARCHITORENA

G.R. No. 109266 December 2, 1993

Facts:

Meriam Defensor Santiago, the petitioner was charged with the violation of Section 3
(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 or the ‘Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act’ in the Sandiganbayan.
She allegedly favored “unqualified” aliens with the benefits of the ‘Alien Legalization Program’.
The petitioner then filed this case to enjoin Sandiganbayan from proceeding with the case, on
the ground that it was intended solely to harass her as she was then a presidential candidate.
After her petition was dismissed, she then filed a motion for inhibition of Presiding Justice
Francis Garchitorena.

The petitioner claims that the 32 Amended Informations filed against her did not charge
any offense punishable under Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 because the official acts complained of
therein were authorized under Executive Order No. 324 and that the Board of Commissioners
of the Bureau of Investigation adopted the policy of approving applications for legalization of
spouses and unmarried, minor children of “qualified aliens” even though they had arrived in the
Philippines after December 31, 1983. She also concludes that the Sandiganbayan erred in not
granting her motion to quash the informations.

Issue:

Whether or not the filing of 32 Amended Informations against the petitioner was
proper.

Held:

No. Only one crime was committed in petitioner’s case, and hence, there should only be
one Information to be filed against her. The 32 Amended Informations charge against the
petitioner is known as delito continuado or “continued crime” and sometimes referred to as
“continuous crime.” It consists of several crimes but in reality, there is only one crime in the
mind of the perpetrator. It is applicable to crime penalized under special laws.

In the case at the bar, the original information charged the petitioner with performing a
single criminal act, that is, her approving the application for legalization of aliens not qualified
under the law represented by the approval of the applications of 32 foreign nationals for
availment (sic) of the ‘Alien Legalization Program’. Such privilege is in violation of Executive
Order No. 324. In this respect, the prosecution is categorical that there will not be 32
accusations but only one.

ILAGAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 110617 December 29, 1994

Facts:

The first case was that on or about covering the period from July, 1990 up to December,
1991 in Kalookan City, the accused which is the President, Finance Manager and Sales Director
of the Apple Realty and Development Corporation defrauded and deceived the buyers: Erlinda
Sayasa, Rogelio Damasco, Gina G. Teston, Filomena Lanoz(o), Natividad Diaz, Florida Gargoles
and Marcelita Ranara, by representing themselves that they are authorized to sell lots and/or
houses and lots to prospective buyers on a commission basis with the restrictions however,
that herein Agents cannot receive any form of payment from buyers as well as to issue any
receipt therefor. The accused knowing fully well of the said agreement the terms and
conditions of which are embodied in the said Contract, induced and convinced the buyers and
despite repeated demands made upon them to return/deliver the said amount, failed and
refused and still fail and refuse to restitute the same. They converted to their own personal use
and benefit the total amount of P353,500.00.

The second case was the same with as above-mentioned but it was on or about the first
week of June to Nov. 23, 1991 with the victim, being Marcelita Ranara and with a total amount
of P24,000.00.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused should be charged with only one offense of estafa since all
cases are against the Apple Realty and Development Corporation.

Held:

No. They should be charged for each offense separately since they were committed
through different modes of estafa. The crime of estafa committed against Apple Realty and
Development Corporation. those committed against the lot buyers are separate felonies. They
were dictated by different criminal intents, committed under different modes of commission
provided by the law on estafa, perpetrated by different acts, consummated on different
occasions, and caused injury to different parties. The series of acts committed against the seven
(7) lot buyers were not the product of a single criminal intent. The misrepresentation or deceit
was employed against each lot buyer on different dates and in separate places, hence, they
originated from separate criminal intents and consequently resulted in separate felonies.
4. Penalty when the crime is different from that intended (Art. 49, RPC)

People vs. Noel T. Sales

GR. No 177218 October 3, 2011

Facts:

The brothers Noemar, nine years old and Junior, eight years old, went to attend the fluvial
procession of Our Lady of Peñafrancia without the permission of their parents. They did not return
home that night thus their father was furious when they went home. The Appellant then whipped them
with a stick which was later broken. With Noemar’s and Junior’s hands and feet tied to a coconut tree,
appellant continued beating them with a thick piece of wood. After, Noemar collapsed and lost
consciousness. The Appellant brought Noemar to the junction and waited for a vehicle to take them to a
hospital. As there was no vehicle and because a quack doctor told them that Noemar is already dead,
appellant brought his son back to their house.

The Appellant denied that his son died from his beating since no parent could kill his or her
child. He claimed that Noemar died as a result of difficulty in breathing for he was brought to a hospital
more than a year before September 2002 and diagnosed with having a weak heart. And that their mother
testified that his seizures normally occurs whenever he gets hungry or when scolded.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of parricide and slight physical injuries.

Rulings:

Yes. All the elements of the crime of parricide is present in this case. Parricide is committed when:
(1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or
child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the
legitimate spouse of accused. As to the charge of Physical injuries, the victim himself, Junior testified that
he, together with his brother Noemar, were beaten by their father, herein appellant, while they were tied
to a coconut tree. He recalled to have been hit on his right eye and right leg and to have been examined
by a physician thereafter. Maria corroborated her son’s testimony.

As to the penalty to be imposed upon the principal when the crime committed is
different from that intended, the following rules shall be observed: (1) If the penalty prescribed
for the felony committed be higher than that corresponding to the offense which the accused
intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum
period, (2) if the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that corresponding
to the one which the accused intended to commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed
in its maximum period and (3) The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not
be applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person shall also constitute an attempt or
frustration of another crime, if the law prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter
offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the attempted or the frustrated crime shall be
imposed in its maximum period.