Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    Santiago v. Garchitorena (G.R. No. 109266) : Facts:asada

    Uploaded by

    ultra gay
    The Sandiganbayan allowed the filing of 32 amended informations against petitioner Santiago charging her with illegally approving the applications of 32 undocumented aliens for legal status. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) technically, only one crime was committed since the approvals were done on the same day by the same act; (2) the amended informations charged a "continued crime"; and (3) the Sandiganbayan's resolution was affirmed but modified to consolidate the 32 informations into one to charge only one offense under the original case number.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Santiago v. Garchitorena (G.R. No. 109266) : Facts:asada

    Uploaded by

    ultra gay
    33 views2 pages
    The Sandiganbayan allowed the filing of 32 amended informations against petitioner Santiago charging her with illegally approving the applications of 32 undocumented aliens for legal status. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) technically, only one crime was committed since the approvals were done on the same day by the same act; (2) the amended informations charged a "continued crime"; and (3) the Sandiganbayan's resolution was affirmed but modified to consolidate the 32 informations into one to charge only one offense under the original case number.

    Original Description:

    asasa

    Original Title

    qqqq

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Sandiganbayan allowed the filing of 32 amended informations against petitioner Santiago charging her with illegally approving the applications of 32 undocumented aliens for legal status. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) technically, only one crime was committed since the approvals were done on the same day by the same act; (2) the amended informations charged a "continued crime"; and (3) the Sandiganbayan's resolution was affirmed but modified to consolidate the 32 informations into one to charge only one offense under the original case number.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    33 views2 pages

    Santiago v. Garchitorena (G.R. No. 109266) : Facts:asada

    Uploaded by

    ultra gay
    The Sandiganbayan allowed the filing of 32 amended informations against petitioner Santiago charging her with illegally approving the applications of 32 undocumented aliens for legal status. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) technically, only one crime was committed since the approvals were done on the same day by the same act; (2) the amended informations charged a "continued crime"; and (3) the Sandiganbayan's resolution was affirmed but modified to consolidate the 32 informations into one to charge only one offense under the original case number.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Santiago v. Garchitorena (G.R. No.

    109266)

    Facts:asada

    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.

    You might also like