Santiago v. Garchitorena (G.R. No.

109266)

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 with us a petition for certiorari and prohibition,
docketed as G.R. No. 99289-99290 (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:

Whether or not the 32 Amended Informations may be admitted?

Held:
 The petition is denied.

The Court find that, technically, there was only one crime that was committed in
petitioner's case, and hence, there should only be one information to be file against
her.The 32 Amended Informations charge what is known as delito continuado or
"continued crime" and sometimes referred to as "continuous crime."

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.

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.

The Resolution dated March 3, 1993 in Criminal Case No. 16698 of the
Sandiganbayan (First Division) is affirmed and its Resolution dated March 11, 1993 in
Criminal Case No. 16698 is modified in the sense that the Office of the Special
Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman is directed to consolidate the 32 Amended
Informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 18371 to 18402) into one information charging only
one offense under the original case number, i.e., No. 16698.