MIRIAM SANTIAGO vs. GARCHITORINA, GR. NO. 109266, December 7, 1993

Doctrine:         

The doctrine of delicti continuado also known as continued crime. The court defined continued crime as 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.

FACTS:

Miriam Santiago, the petitioner in this case filed a motion for Bill of Particular in relation to the criminal case charged against her. In that Criminal case, it was alleged that the petitioner had violated Executive Order No. 324, when it approved the application of those aliens for legalization of their stay in the country, though these aliens are not qualified under the law. To that effect of the approval, she was prosecuted to be held accountable under R.A. 3019.

During the hearing of the motion for Bill of articular, the prosecutor manifested that they would file only one amended information. However, it turns out that the prosecutor had filed 32 Amended Informations against the petitioner.

Thus, the petitioner claimed that the Amended Informations did not allege that she had caused "undue injury to any party, including the Government, and could not be held accountable of those 32 Amended Informations.

 

The ISSUE in this case in relation to our subject is whether or not the petitioner Miriam Santiago is liable for the 32 Amended Informations instead of the single Information originally filed against her? 

 

HELD: 

In decision this case, the court reiterated the doctrine of delicti continuado also known as continued crime. The court defined continued crime as 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. A delicto continuado consist of several crimes but in reality, there is one only one crime in the mind of the perpetrator.

In the case at the bench, the original information charged the 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 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.

 

WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED. The Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman is directed to consolidate the 32 Amended Informations.

 

DANILO BUHAT, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents., G.R. No. 119601 December 17, 1996

 FACTS:

An Information for homicide was filed in the RTC against Danny Buhat. The Information alleged that Danny Buhat, armed with a knife, unlawfully attacked and killed Ramon Yu while the said two unknown persons held his arms, using superior strength, inflicting, mortal wound which caused his death.

The City Prosecutor filed the aforementioned Information for homicide before RTC. However, the Secretary of Justice ordered the Prosecutor to amend the Information by upgrading the offense charge from homicide to murder, which the Prosecutor filed a motion for leave to amend the Information. The RTC, however, denied the motion of amendment and ordered the prosecution of the criminal offense of homicide.

Meanwhile, the OSG elevated the case to CA assailing the order of the trial court in denying the motion to amend the original Information filed. The CA granted the assailed order of the trial court.

Thereafter, the original Information of criminal offense of homicide was amended into murder which included two other accused conspiring and confederating, helping each other in the killing of Ramon Yu.    

ISSUE: whether or not the amendment of the original Information of criminal offense from homicide to murder is procedurally infirmed?

HELD:

Jurisprudential rule is that an allegation of conspiracy and in the indictment of some other persons in addition to the original accused, constitutes a mere formal amendment permissible even after arraignment.

In the case of Regala Vs. Bataan, we ruled that an amendment of an original Information with an indictment by including two other persons charged with the same offense and alleging conspiracy was held that amendment is not substantial and is allowed.

We also ruled in the case of Dimalibot Vs. Salcedo that an amendment of the Information so as to change the crime charged from homicide to murder, may be made, even if it may result in altering the nature of the charged so long as it can be done without prejudice to the to the right of the accused.

In this case, the original Information, while only mentioning homicide, alleged:

Danny Buhat, John Doe and Richard Doe as the accused of Danny Buhat stabbing the deceased Ramon while his two other companions were holding the arms of Ramon, thus, "the Information already alleged superior strength"; and inflicting mortal wounds which led to the death of Ramon.

Superior strength qualifies the offense to murder.

 

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The City Prosecutor of Roxas City is HEREBY ORDERED to file the correct Amended Information.

ROGELIO JUAN, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent, G.R. No. 132378, January 18, 2000

 FACTS:

Juan, an incumbent Punong Barangay, together with another Barangay Kagawad was charged with a criminal offense in violation of Omnibus Election Code and the R.A. 3019. During the election campaign, Rogelio Juan had willfully and unlawfully used a Radio Transceiver owned and controlled property of the Barangay. The other accused also willfully and unlawfully used a motor vehicle owned by the same Barangay.

A Motion for Removal from the Office was filed against them before the Regional Trial Court.

Rogelio together with the other accused have filed their comments on the ground that the RTC do not have jurisdiction over the case, but instead, it was the MTC having cognization thereof since the penalty does not exceed six years. They also argued that their case is not subject to R.A.3019.

However, upon trial and investigation, the trial court issued its decision granting the Motion for Removal from their office.

ISSUES:

1.         Whether or not RTC has jurisdiction over the case?

2.         Whether or not preventive suspension under R.A. 3091 be applied in this case?

 

HELD:

1.     Yes. It is evident from Section 32, BP 129, as amended by Section 2 of RA 7691, that the jurisdiction of first-level courts, the metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts and municipal circuit trial courts, does not cover those criminal cases which by specific provision of law are cognizable by regional trial courts.

Under Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code, it provides that the regional trial courts have exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or proceeding for violation of the Code, "except those relating to the offense of failure to register or failure to vote.

2.     Yes. Section 13 of R.A. 3019, as amended, provides: Any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid Information under this Act or under Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office…

It must be emphasized that petitioners were incumbent public officers charged with the unauthorized and unlawful use of government property in their custody, in the pursuit of personal interests. The crime being imputed to them is akin to that committed by public officers as laid down in the Revised Penal Code. Certainly, petitioners' acts constitute fraud against the government; thus, the present case is covered by Section 13 of RA 3019.

 

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED.