CONTINUED CRIME

Different acts constitute only

Each act is a separate crime
A principle wherein a single crime consisting of series of acts one crime because all the acts
generated by different
but all arising from one criminal resolution. arise from one criminal
criminal impulses.
impulse.
 Impelled by a single criminal impulse but committed by
a series of overt acts at about the same time in about the Single Criminal Impulse Test
same place and all the overt acts violate one and the
same provision of law. Applies To:
 Theft of 13 cows at same place and time
Although there are a series of acts, there is only one crime
 Theft of 6 roosters belonging to 2 different owners from
committed. One penalty should be imposed.
the same coop and at the same time
 Three penetrations occurred during one continuing act
Basis
of rape in which the appellant was obviously motivated
 The basis is the singularity of impulse of the offender.
by a single criminal intent
 Accused and his companions intended only to rob one
Requisites/Elements
place. In the process, also took away by force the
money and valuables of the employees working in said
1. Plurality of acts performed during a period of time;
gasoline station.
2. Unity of penal provisions violated;
3. Unity of criminal intent or purpose.
Does Not Apply:
To formal/instantaneous crimes. Adultery is NOT a delito
A Continued Crime Is Not A Complex Crime
continuado. Each sexual act is an offense. It is consummated
and exhausted (like the accused) at the time of carnal union.
 In continued crimes, one offense is not a necessary
means for committing another.

Continued Crime v. Real or Material Plurality

Example:
A, B, C, and D lives in one compound. All engaged in the
Real or Material Continued Crime business of selling rabbits. One night, while they were
sleeping, X took the rabbit of A, then of B, then of C, then of
Series of acts performed by the offender
D.
Question: How many crimes will you file against X?
Answer: Crime committed is one charge of theft. X impelled
by a single impulse committed overt acts leading to theft.
Santiago v. Garchtorena
(G.R. No. 109266, December 2, 1993)
Petitioner Miriam Defensor-Santiago was charged in the
Sandiganbayan with the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
for favoring 32 “unqualified” aliens with the benefits of the
Alien Legalization Program. Defensor-Santiago moved for a
bill of particulars, contending that unless she be provided with
the names and identities of the “aliens” she would not be able
to adequately prepare for trial. Initially, the public prosecutors
stated that they would file only one amended complaint, but
they later filed 32 amended informations, separately naming
each of the informations. The Sandiganbayan admitted the 32
amended informations.
Question: Was it correct to admit the 32 amended
informations?
CONTINUING CRIME
In continuing crime, the offender may be prosecuted in any
courts of the place where any of the crime has been committed.
Example:
X in payment of his obligation, issued a postdated check to Y
in Manila. On the maturity date, Y deposited the check to
depositary bank in Quezon City. The check however was
dishonored by the drawee bank in Caloocan City. Notice of
dishonor was sent. X failed to make good the check. A
complaint was filed against X for violation of BP 22.
Question: Where may Y file the case for violation of BP 22?
Answer: The complaint may be filed in any of the court where
the elements of the crime occurred. If the BP 22 has already
been filed in the MTC of Manila, the said case no longer be
filed before the MTC of Quezon City or Caloocan City.

Answer: No. 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 same instant or
resolution leading to the perpetration of the same criminal
purpose or aim. In this case, 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.