Patrick Luis S.

Damaso
Block 1
2019-80159
Criminal Law 1
Continued Crime

A continued crime is a single crime, consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one
criminal resolution. It 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. Since
there is only a single crime, only one penalty is imposed although there is a series of acts.

A series of acts born of a single criminal impulse may be perpetrated during a long
period of time. Thus, in a case where the offender sent letters on different occasions demanding
money under threats of death and burning the house of the complainant. It was held that the
different acts of sending the letters constitute only one crime of grave threats because it was
born out of a single criminal impulse to attain a definitive objective.

Furthermore, a continued crime is not a complex crime as defined under Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code. In a complex crime, there is either a single act which results in two or
more felonies or one of the offenses was a necessary means to commit the other. On the other
hand, a continued crime is a series of acts which arise from a single criminal resolution.
Therefore, the penalty for a continued crime is not imposed in its maximum period.

In People v De Leon, Vicente De Leon entered Magat’s house and took with intent to
gain, without violence or force upon things, two game roosters which belonged to two different
individuals. De Leon was charged with two counts of theft in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in
which he pleaded guilty. The MTC found him guilty of 2 counts of theft. De Leon appealed the
case and the Court of First Instance (CFI) found that he is only guilty for one crime of theft. He
appealed his case again before the Supreme Court alleging that the lower courts erred in finding
him guilty. The Supreme Court found no reason to reverse the rulings of the lower court and
affirmed the ruling of the CFI which held that he should only be guilty of one count of theft. The
Supreme Court held that what constitutes the crime of theft is the act of taking without violence
or force upon things, with intent to gain, and without the consent of its owner. The act of taking
the two roosters in the same place and on the same occasion cannot give rise to two crimes
because there was only one criminal purpose. The fact that the two roosters were owned by two
different individuals is immaterial since there was unity of thought and only one criminal purpose
in the act of taking.

In the case of Santiago v Garchitorena, the petitioner Miriam Defensor Santiago was
charged with the violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 or the “Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act”
before the Sandiganbayan for allegedly favoring unqualified aliens with the benefits of the Alien
Legalization Program. Petitioner contends that the charges against her were attempts to harass
her since she was running in the elections. Petitioner also filed a motion for a bill of particulars
because the information did not specify which aliens she allegedly favored. The prosecution
initially claimed that they would file only a single information against petitioner. However, they
later filed a motion to admit 32 amended informations which was granted by the
Sandiganbayan. The petitioner contended that the 32 separate charges against her were
improper. The Supreme Court held that there should have just been one information since it
was a continued crime. The Supreme Court listed the requisites for a continued crime to exist
which are: (1) there must be a plurality of acts performed during a period of time, (2) unity
of the penal provision violated, and (3) unity of criminal intent or purpose. The 32
amended informations are all similar except for the name of the alien. The information avers that
the offenses were committed on the same period of time. There is also a strong probability that
the approval of the applications or the legalization of the stay of the aliens was done by a single
stroke of a pen. The court therefore ordered the Office of the Ombudsman to consolidate the 32
separate informations.