WEEK 3 The 32 Amended Informations charge what is known as delito continuado or
#17 SANTIAGO V. GARCHITORENA “continued crime” and sometimes referred to as “continuous crime.”
G.R. No. 109266/ December 2, 1993
Topic: Delito continuado (continuing crime)
Petitioner: MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO
Respondent: HON. JUSTICE
FRANCIS GARCHITORENA, SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division) and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Ponente: QUIASON, J.
FACTS: On May 1, 1991, petitioner was charged in Criminal Case No. 16698 of
the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, allegedly
committed by her favoring "unqualified" aliens with the benefits of the Alien
Legalization Program.
On May 24, 1991, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
(Santiago v. Vasquez, 205 SCRA 162 [1992]), to enjoin the Sandiganbayan from
proceeding with Criminal Case No. 16698 on the ground that said case was
intended solely to harass her as she was then a presidential candidate. The
petition was dismissed on January 13, 1992.
On October 27, 1992, the Sandiganbayan (First Division), of which Presiding
Justice Garchitorena is a member, set the criminal case for arraignment on
November 13, 1992. The Sandiganbayan (First Division) denied the motion to
defer the arraignment. Petitioner filed a motion for a bill of particulars.
According to petitioner, unless she was furnished with the names and identities
of the aliens, she could not properly plead and prepare for trial.
On March 14, 1993, the Sandiganbayan (First Division) promulgated a
resolution, admitting the 32 Amended Informations and ordering petitioner to
post the corresponding bail bonds. Hence, the filing of the instant petition.
ISSUE: W/N the petitioner is correctly charged with the 32 Amended
Informations?
RULING:
NO. The Court found that there was only one crime that was committed in the
case, and hence, there should only be one information to be filed against her.
In the case, the original information charged petitioner with performing a single
criminal act—that of her approving the application for legalization of aliens not
qualified under the law to enjoy such privilege.
The original information also averred that the criminal act: (i) committed by
petitioner was in violation of a law—Executive Order No. 324 dated April 13,
1988, (ii) caused an undue injury to one offended party, the Government, and
(iii) was done on a single day, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988.
The 32 Amended Informations reproduced verbatim the allegation of the
original information, except that instead of the word “aliens” in the original
information each amended information states the name of the individual whose
stay was legalized.
Likewise, the 32 Amended Informations aver that the offenses were committed
on the same period of time, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988. The strong
probability even exists that the approval of the application or the legalization of
the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of the pen, as when the
approval was embodied in the same document. Likewise, the public prosecutors
manifested at the hearing the motion for a bill of particulars that the
Government suffered a single harm or injury.
NOTES:
Court cited several sources regarding delito continuado.
Cuello Calon (Spanish jurist): for delito continuado to exist, there should be a
plurality of acts performed during a period of time; unity of penal provision
violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means that two or more
violations of the same penal provisions are united in one and the same intent or
resolution leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim.
Guevarra: in appearance, a delito continuado consists of several crimes but in
reality, there is only one crime in the mind of the perpetrator.
Padilla: consisting of a series of acts arising from one criminal intent or
resolution.