NISCE, Alyssa Angela R.
children of “qualified aliens” even though they had arrived in the
12081000 - G05
CRIMINAL LAW 1 - CASE BRIEFS
Case #1: Miriam Defensor Santiago, ​petitioner​, v. Hon. Justice Francis
Garchitorena, Sandiganbayan and People of The Philippines,
respondents​,
G.R. No. 109266 | December 2, 1993
FACTS
- Petitioner Miriam Defensor-Santiago was charged with violation of Sec. 3
of R.A. No. 3019, “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act” which was
allegedly committed by her favoring “unqualified aliens” with benefits of the
Alien Legalization Program.
- Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to
enjoin the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with her criminal case, stating
that it was intended solely to harass her as she was then a presidential
candidate. She alleged that this was in the violation of Sec 10, Art. IX-C of
the Constitution which provides that “bona fide candidates for any public
office shall be free from any form of harassment and discrimination.”
- Petitioner then filed a motion for inhibition of Presiding Justice
Garchitorena. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion. Hence, an instant
petition was filed ordering Presiding Justice Garchitorena “to Cease and
Desist from sitting in the case until the question of his disqualification is
finally resolved.”
- Santiago claims that the amended information did not charge any offense
punishable under Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 3019, and that the Board of
Commissioners of the Bureau of Investigation adopted the policy of
approving applications for legalization of spouses unmarried, minor
Philippines after Dec. 31,1983.
- In a motion to quash, petitioner admitted that she approved the
application for legalization of the stay of aliens in the Philippines after
January 1, 1984. Thus, her act constituted an element of offense defined
in Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 3019.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the petitioner’s acts constituted to the offense a continued
crime.
RULING:
- Yes, the petitioner’s acts constitute a continued crime. In this case, the
original information charged petitioner with performing a single criminal act
by virtue of her approving the application for legalization of aliens not
qualified under the law to enjoy such privilege.
- The charge under the 32 Amended Informations is what is referred to as
delito continuado or continued crime. Delito continuado exists if there is a
plurality of acts performed during a period of time, unity of penal provisions
violated, and unity of criminal intent or purpose. This means that two or
more violations of the same penal provisions are united in the same intent
or resolution, leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or
aim.
- The 32 Amended Informations aver that the offenses were committed on
the same period of time. The strong probability even exists that the
approval of the applications were done by a single stroke of the pen as
when the approval was embodied in the same document. It clearly shows
that this was done under one intent because it was all of the same nature
and result.
1
- Thus, charging the petitioner with 32 amended Informations is not the
proper criminal case since only one crime was committed. Hence, the
Court ruled that there should only be one Information filed against her,
charging only one offense under the original case number.
Case #2: Geruncio H. Ilagan, Claro Piñon And Rosendo Piñon,
petitioners,​ v. Hon. Court Of Appeals, Hon. Arturo A. Romero, Salvador
Q. Quimpo and Hometrust Development Corporation, ​respondents,
G.R. No. 110617 | December 29, 1994.
FACTS:
- Geruncio H. Ilagan, Claro Piñon and Rosendo Piñon as the President,
Finance Manager and Sales Director, respectively, of the Apple Realty and
Development Corporation represented themselves that they are
authorized to collect, receive and issue receipts of payments from the
corporation. Knowing fully well that they are not authorized to do so, they
received an amount of P353,500.
- They are accused of conspiring and confederating with one another, by
means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations which they
made to the prospective lots and houses and lot buyers from the
Hometrust Development Corporation, represented by its Manager, Sally S.
Go.
- In another case, being then duly appointed as agents of the same
Corporation, induced and convinced one Marcelita Ranara to buy and
purchase lots and/or house and lots and receive payments and issue
receipts therefor. They received a total of P24,000.00. Petitioners alleged
that this represented the reservation fee/downpayment of the lots and/or
houses and lots of purchase price. However, in truth and fact, they are not
entitled to do such an act, much less have no personality to collect
whatever amount from said prospective buyers.
- Six (6) other Informations were filed with the same fraudulent acts
committed by the petitioners but with different offended parties. Thus, a
total of eight (8) informations were filed and docketed as criminal cases
charging petitioners Geruncio H. Ilagan, Claro Piñonand Rosendo Piñon
as co-conspirators in the crime of estafa.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the acts of the accused constitute only one offense and
should only be charged with the single offense of estafa.
RULING:
- No, the offenses do not constitute only one offense; they were correctly
filed as eight separate crimes of estafa. The crime of estafa committed
against Hometrust Development Corporation and 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.
- In the first case, the crime of estafa against Hometrust Development
Corporation was committed through unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence,
as provided in Article 315, Par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
- In the second case, the offense of swindling was committed by deceit or
false pretenses employed prior to or simultaneously with the commission
of the fraud, more specifically as provided in Article 315, Par. 2(a) of the
RPC.
- The offense was consummated upon receipt by Ilagan and company of
the amounts in the different occasions and places where the payments
were made by the lot buyers who were deprived of both their money and
property rights. Thus, the plurality of crimes is evident as both the two
modes to commit estafa ( by abuse of confidence and damage for the
corporation; and through elements of deceit and damage for the lot
2
buyers) are present. Hence, the Court correctly held the punishment of
separate offenses for the crimes committed.
Case #3: Ana Lou B. Navaja, ​petitioner,​ v. Hon. Manuel A. De Castro,
Or The Acting Presiding Judge Of MCTC Jagna-Garcia-Hernandez,
DKT Phils., Inc., represented by Atty. Edgar Borje, ​respondents,
G.R. No. 182926 | June 22, 2015.
FACTS:
- The instant case arose from a preliminary investigation proceeding
initiated by DKT Philippines charging Ana Lou B. Navaja, of the crime of
Falsification of a Private Document.
- In this case, a certain Ms. Marilyn Magsigay, a material witness for DKT,
was subpoenaed in order to shed light regarding the incident. According to
her, petitioner told her that her presence was no longer in Court. Thus, Ms.
Magsigay no longer attended the scheduled hearing where petitioner and
Atty, Bonghanoy presented an affidavit purportedly executed by Magsigay
and notarized by a certain Atty. Rolando Grapa.
- Concurrently, respondent Atty. Edgar Borje, DKT’s counsel, found out
from Magsigay herself that the latter would have attended the hearing
were it not for the misrepresentation of petitioner; that she was made to
sign an affidavit by her superior which she did not personally execute and
that she could have not gone to Cebu and have the same notarized as she
was at work that day.
- Separate informations were filed against petitioner for violation of Section
1(a) of PD No. 1829 (Municipal Trial Court in City-Jagna); and against
petitioner and Atty. Bonghanoy for violation of Section 1(f)
(MTCC-Tagbilaran) of the same law.
- Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss/Quash the case but the MCTC denied
the motion. Petitioner then elevated the case to the RTC. It held that the
criminal cases pending before the MCTC-Jagna for the violations
mentioned in the same law are two (2) separate offenses. Petitioner
appealed to the CA, which in turn affirmed the RTC ruling.
ISSUE/S:
- Whether or not the petitioner may be separately tried for different acts
constituting two (2) violations of PD No. 1829 during the pendency of a
single proceeding.
RULING:
- No, the petitioner cannot be separately tried for the different acts despite
them constituting a violation of 2 separate sections of PD No. 1829. In this
case, 2 separate informations were filed against petitioner, namely: (a) an
information charging him of violation of Section 1(a) of PD No. 1829 before
the MCTC-Jagna for allegedly preventing the appearance of Ms. Magsigay
in a preliminary investigation hearing; and (b) an information charging him
of violation of Section 1(f) of the same law before the MTCC-Tagbilaran for
allegedly presenting a false affidavit.
- While the informations pertain to acts that were done days apart and in
different locations, the Court holds that the petitioner should only be
charged and held liable for a single violation of PD No. 1829. This is
because the alleged act, albeit separate, were motivated by a single
criminal impulse which is to obstruct or impede the preliminary
investigation proceeding in this case which was, in fact, eventually
dismissed by the OPP-Bohol.
- Thus, petitioner should only be charged with 1 count of violation of PD
No. 1829 which may be filed either in Jagna, Bohol where Ms. Magsigay
was allegedly prevented from appearing and testifying in IS Case No.
04-1238, or in Tagbilaran City, Bohol where petitioner allegedly presented
a false affidavit in the same case.
3
- However, since he was already convicted in the MTCC-Tagbilaran, the
case in MCTC-Jagna should be dismissed as the events that transpired in
Jagna, Bohol should only be deemed as a partial execution of petitioner’s
single criminal design.

- The foregoing conclusion is premised on the principle of ​delito

continuado,​ which envisages a single crime committed through a series of
acts arising from one criminal intent or resolution.