In criminal law, when a series of acts are perpetrated in pursuance of a single criminal impulse, there is what is called a continued crime. In criminal procedure for purposes of venue, this is referred to as a continuing crime.
The term “continuing crimes” as sometimes used in lieu of the term “continued crimes”, however, although both terms are analogous, they are not really used with the same import. “Continuing crime” is the term used in criminal procedure to denote that a certain crime may be prosecuted and tried not only before the court of the place where it was originally committed or began, but also before the court of the place where the crime was continued. Hence, the term “continuing crime” is used in criminal procedure when any of the material ingredients of the crime was committed in different places.
A “continued crime” is one where the offender performs a series of acts violating one and the same penal provision committed at the same place and about the same time for the same criminal purpose, regardless of a series of acts done, it is regarded in law as one.
In People v. de Leon, where the accused took five roosters from one and the same chicken coop, although, the roosters were owned by different persons, it was held that there is only one crime of theft committed, because the accused acted out of a single criminal impulse only. However performing a series of acts but this is one and the same intent Supreme Court ruled that only one crime is committed under one information.
In People v. Lawas, the accused constabulary soldiers were ordered to march with several muslims from one barrio to another place. These soldiers feared that on the way, some of the Muslims may escape. So Lawas ordered the men to tie the Muslims by the hand connecting one with the other, so no one would run away. When the hands of the Muslims were tied, one of them protested, he did not want to be included among those who were tied becase he was a Hajji, so the Hajji remonstrated and there was commotion. At the height of the commotion, Lawas ordered his men to fire, and the soldiers mechanically fired. Eleven were killed and several others were wounded. The question of whether the
constabulary soldiers should be prosecuted for the killing of each under a separate information has reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the accused should be prosecuted only in one information, because a complex crime of multiple homicide was committed by them.
In another case, a band of robbers came across a compound where a sugar mill is located. The workers of said mill have their quarters within the compound. The band of robbers ransacked the different quarters therein. It was held that there is only one crime committed – multiple robbery, not because of Article 48 but because this is a continued crime. When the robbers entered the compound, they were moved by a single criminal intent. Not because there were several quarters robbed. This becomes a complex crime.
The definition in Article 48 is not honored because the accused did not perform a single act. There were a series of acts, but the decision in the Lawas case is correct. The confusion lies in this. While Article 48 speaks of a complex crime where a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave offenses, even those cases when the act is not a single but a series of acts resulting to two or more grave and less grave felonies, the Supreme Court considered this as a complex crime when the act is the product of one single criminal impulse.
If confronted with a problem, use the standard or condition that it refers not only to the singleness of the act which brought two or more grave and/less grave felonies. The Supreme Court has extended this class of complex crime to those cases when the offender performed not a single act but a series of acts as long as it is the product of a single criminal impulse.
You cannot find an article in the Revised Penal Code with respect to the continued crime or continuing crime. The nearest article is Article 48. Such situation is also brought under the operation of Article 48. In People v. Garcia, the accused were convicts who were members of a certain gang and they conspired to kill the other gang. Some of the accused killed their victims in one place within the same penitentiary, some killed the others in another place within the same penitentiary. The Supreme Court ruled that all accused should be punished under one information because they acted in conspiracy. The act of one is the act of all. Because there were several victims killed and some were mortally wounded, the accused should be held for the complex crime of multiple homicide with multiple frustrated homicide. There is a complex crime not only when there is a single act but a series of acts. It is correct that when the offender acted in conspiracy, this crime is considered as one and prosecuted under one information. Although in this case, the offenders did not only kill one person but killed different persons, so it is clear that in killing of one victim or the killing of another victim, another act out of this is done simultaneously. Supreme Court considered this as complex. Although the killings did not result from one single act.
In criminal procedure, it is prohibited to charge more than one offense in an information, except when the crimes in one information constitute a complex crime or a special complex crime.
So whenever the Supreme Court concludes that the criminal should be punished only once, because they acted in conspiracy or under the same criminal impulse, it is necessary to embody these crimes under one single information. It is necessary to consider them as complex crimes even if the essence of the crime does not fit the definition of Art 48, because there is no other provision in the RPC.
Duplicity of offenses, in order not to violate this rule, it must be called a complex crime.
In earlier rulings on abduction with rape, if several offenders abducted the woman and abused her, there is multiple rape. The offenders are to be convicted of one count of rape and separately charged of the other rapes.
In People v. Jose, there were four participants here. They abducted the woman, after which, the four took turns in abusing her. It was held that each one of the four became liable not only for his own rape but also for those committed by the others. Each of the four offenders was convicted of four rapes. In the eyes of the law, each committed four crimes of rape. One of the four rapes committed by one of them was complexed with the crime of abduction. The other three rapes are distinct counts of rape. The three rapes are not necessary to commit the other rapes. Therefore, separate complaints/information.
In People v. Pabasa, the Supreme Court through Justice Aquino ruled that there is only one count of forcible abduction with rape committed by the offenders who abducted the two women and abused them several times. This was only a dissenting opinion of Justice Aquino, that there could be only one complex crimeof abduction with rape, regardless of the number of rapes committed because all the
rapes are but committed out of one and the same lewd design which impelled the offender to abduct the victim.
In People v. Bojas, the Supreme Court followed the ruling in People v. Jose that the four men who abducted and abused the offended women were held liable for one crime – one count or forcible abudction with rape and distinct charges for rape for the other rapes committed by them.
In People v. Bulaong, the Supreme Court adopted the dissenting opinion of Justice Aquino in People
v. Pabasa, that when several persons abducted a woman and abused her, regardless of the number of
rapes committed, there should only be one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. The rapes committed were in the nature of a continued crime characterized by the same lewd design which is an essential element in the crime of forcible abduction.
The abuse amounting to rape is complexed with forcible abduction because the abduction was already consummated when the victim was raped. The forcible abduction must be complexed therewith. But the multiple rapes should be considered only as one because they are in the nature of a continued crime.
Note: This is a dangerous view because the abductors will commit as much rape as they can, after all, only one complex crime of rape would arise.
In adultery, each intercourse constitutes one crime. Apparently, the singleness of the act is not considered a single crime. Each intercourse brings with it the danger of bringing one stranger in the family of the husband.
Article 48 also applies in cases when out of a single act of negligence or imprudence, two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted, although only the first part thereof (compound crime). The second part of Article 48 does not apply, referring to the complex crime proper because this applies or refers only to a deliberate commission of one offense to commit another offense.
However, a light felony may result from criminal negligence or imprudence, together with other grave or less grave felonies resulting therefrom and the Supreme Court held that all felonies resulting from criminal negligence should be made subject of one information only. The reason being that, there is only one information and prosecution only. Otherwise, it would be tantamount to splitting the criminal negligence similar to splitting a cause of action which is prohibited in civil cases.
Although under Article 48, a light felony should not be included in a complex crime, yet by virtue of this ruling of the Supreme Court, the light felony shall be included in the same information charging the offender with grave and/or less grave felonies resulting from the negligence of reckless imprudence and this runs counter to the provision of Article 48. So while the Supreme Court ruled that the light felony resulting from the same criminal negligence should be complexed with the other felonies because that would be a blatant violation of Article 48, instead the Supreme Court stated that an additional penalty should be imposed for the light felony. This would mean two penalties to be imposed, one for the complex crime and one for the light felony. It cannot separate the light felony because it appears that the culpa is crime itself and you cannot split the crime.
Applying the concept of the “continued crime”, the following cases have been treated as constituting one crime only:
(1) The theft of 13 cows belonging to two different persons committed by the accused at the same place and period of time (People v. Tumlos, 67 Phil. 320);
(2) The theft of six roosters belonging to two different owners from the same coop and at the same period of time (People v. Jaranillo);
(3) The illegal charging of fees for service rendered by a lawyer every time he collects veteran’s benefits on behalf of a client who agreed that attorney’s fees shall be paid out of such benefits (People v. Sabbun, 10 SCAR 156). The collections of legal fees were impelled by the same motive, that of collecting fees for services rendered, and all acts of collection were made under the same criminal impulse.
(1) Two Estafa cases, one which was committed during the period from January 19 to December, 1955 and the other from January 1956 to July 1956 (People v. Dichupa, 13 Phil 306). Said acts were committed on two different occasions;
(2) Several malversations committed in May, June and July 1936 and falsifications to conceal said offenses committed in August and October, 1936. The malversations and falsifications were not the result of one resolution to embezzle and falsify (People v. CIV, 66 Phil. 351);
(3) Seventy-five estafa cases committed by the conversion by the agents of collections from the customers of the employer made on different dates.
In the theft cases, the trend is to follow the single larceny doctrine, that is taking of several things, whether belonging to the same or different owners, at the same time and place, constitutes one larceny only. Many courts have abandoned the separate larceny doctrine, under which there was distinct larceny as to the property of each victim.
Also abandoned is the doctrine that the government has the discretion to prosecute the accused for one offense or for as many distinct offenses as there are victims (Santiago v. Justice Garchitorena, decided on December 2, 1993). Here, the accused was charged with performing a single act – that of approving the legalization of aliens not qualified under the law. The prosecution manifested that they would only file one information. Subsequently, 32 amended informations were filed. The Supreme Court directed the prosecution to consolidate the cases into one offense because (1) they were in violation of the same law – Executive Order No. 324; (2) caused injury to one party only – the government; and (3) they were done in the same day. The concept of delito continuado has been applied to crimes under special laws since in Article 10, the Revised Penal Code shall be supplementary to special laws, unless the latter provides the contrary.