Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

Santiago v. Garchitorena (G.R. No.

109266) On March 14, 1993, the Sandiganbayan (First


Facts: Division) promulgated a resolution, admitting the 32
On May 1, 1991, petitioner was charged in Criminal Amended Informations and ordering petitioner to post the
Case No. 16698 of the Sandiganbayan with violation of corresponding bail bonds. Hence, the filing of the instant
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known petition.
as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, allegedly
committed by her favoring "unqualified" aliens with the Issue: Whether or not the 32 Amended Informations may
benefits of the Alien Legalization Program. be admitted?

On May 24, 1991, petitioner filed with us a petition Held: The petition is denied.
for certiorari and prohibition, docketed as G.R. No. 99289-
99290 (Santiago v. Vasquez, 205 SCRA 162 [1992]), to The Court find that, technically, there was only one
enjoin the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with Criminal crime that was committed in petitioner's case, and hence,
Case No. 16698 on the ground that said case was intended there should only be one information to be file against
solely to harass her as she was then a presidential her.The 32 Amended Informations charge what is known as
candidate. The petition was dismissed on January 13, 1992. delito continuado or "continued crime" and sometimes
referred to as "continuous crime."
On October 27, 1992, the Sandiganbayan (First
Division), of which Presiding Justice Garchitorena is a The original information charged petitioner with
member, set the criminal case for arraignment on November performing a single criminal act - that of her approving the
13, 1992. The Sandiganbayan (First Division) denied the application for legalization of aliens not qualified under the
motion to defer the arraignment. Petitioner filed a motion for law to enjoy such privilege. The original information also
a bill of particulars. According to petitioner, unless she was averred that the criminal act : (i) committed by petitioner
furnished with the names and identities of the aliens, she was in violation of a law - Executive Order No. 324 dated
could not properly plead and prepare for trial. 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 the motion for a bill of particulars that the Government
original information, except that instead of the word "aliens" suffered a single harm or injury.
in the original information each amended information states
the name of the individual whose stay was legalized. The Resolution dated March 3, 1993 in Criminal Case
No. 16698 of the Sandiganbayan (First Division) is affirmed
The 32 Amended Informations aver that the offenses and its Resolution dated March 11, 1993 in Criminal Case
were committed on the same period of time, i.e., on or No. 16698 is modified in the sense that the Office of the
about October 17, 1988. The strong probability even exists Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman is
that the approval of the application or the legalization of the directed to consolidate the 32 Amended Informations
stay of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of the pen, (Criminal Cases Nos. 18371 to 18402) into one information
as when the approval was embodied in the same document. charging only one offense under the original case number,
Likewise, the public prosecutors manifested at the hearing i.e., No. 16698.

Potrebbero piacerti anche