Abella, Kiana Aguilar, Yna Arcilla, Ericka

Santiago v Garchitorena

GR no 109266 December 2, 1993

Delito Continuado

Facts:

 Petitioner was charged with the violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
allegedly committed by her favoring "unqualified" aliens with the benefits of the Alien
Legalization Program in the Sandiganbayan.

 Petitioner then filed for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin the Sandiganbayan from
proceeding with the case on the ground that said case was intended solely to harass her
as she was then a presidential candidate.

 After her petition was dismissed, she then filed a motion for inhibition of Presiding
Justice Garchitorena.

 At the hearing on November 13, 1992 on the motion for particulars on the motion for a
bill of particulars, the prosecution stated categorically that they would file only one
amended information against petitioner.

 However, on December 8, 1992, the prosecution filed a motion to admit the 32 Amended
Informations.

 Petitioner next claims that the Amended Informations did not charge any offense
punishable under Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 because the official acts complained of
therein were authorized under Executive Order No. 324 and that the Board of
Commissioners of the Bureau of Investigation adopted the policy of approving
applications for legalization of spouses and unmarried, minor children of "qualified
aliens" even though they had arrived in the Philippines after December 31, 1983.

 She concludes that the Sandiganbayan erred in not granting her motion to quash the
informations.

 Anent petitioner's claim that the Amended Informations did not allege that she had
caused "undue injury to any party, including the Government," there are two ways of
violating Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019. These are: (a) by causing any undue injury to any
party, including the Government; and (b) by giving any private party any unwarranted
benefit, advantage or preference.

 It bears noting that the public prosecutors filed a total of 32 Informations against the
petitioner for the violation of such law.

Issue:

Whether or not it was proper to file 32 Amended Informations against the petitioner

Held and ruling:

No.
Technically, there was only one crime that was committed in petitioner's case, and hence,
there should only be one information to be filed against her. The 32 Amended Informations
charge what is known as delito continuado or "continued crime" and sometimes referred to as
"continuous crime." Accordingly to Cuello Calon, 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 the same intent or resolution leading to the
perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim. In the case at bench, 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 for 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.

Dispositive:

WHEREFORE, 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. The temporary restraining order issued by this
Court on March 25, 1993 is LIFTED insofar as to the disqualification of Presiding Justice
Francis Garchitorena is concerned. llcd||| (Santiago v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266,
[December 2, 1993])