MALLARI v.

PEOPLE
December 13, 1988 | Fernan, C.J. | Continued crime ISSUE/s: WoN the conviction must be set aside on the ground that the crime
charged in the earlier criminal case is the same as the present case – YES (it’s a
PETITIONER: Consuelo E. Mallari continued crime)
RESPONDENTS: People of the Philippines and Court of Appeals
RULING: Petition GRANTED. Judgment of conviction is set aside on the ground of
SUMMARY: Petitioner face another conviction for the crime of Estafa double jeopardy.
through Falsification of Public Document. She contended that the
RATIO:
present conviction should be dismissed on the ground of double 1. Having compared the Informations filed in the 2 cases, they refer to the
jeopardy, as she has already been convicted before for the same same series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution. Hence, only
offense. The CA ruled that the acts alleged in the 2 Informations one penalty shall be imposed.
are different, so the present case can stand. SC granted the 2. The crime, although consummated through a series of acts, was “set on
petition and set aside the 2nd conviction upon finding that the foot” by the single intent or impulse to defraud of a total amount of P3000.
acts alleged for the 2 cases refer to the same series of acts There was only one deceit practiced by the petitioner on the 2 victims.
arising from one criminal resolution. Being a continued crime, 3. There are 2 victims, but the determinative factor is the unity or multiplicity
of the criminal intenr or of the transactions. The singularity of the iffense
only one penalty should be imposed.
committed by petitioner is further demonstrated by the falsification of the 2
public documents as a means of committing estafa were performed on the
DOCTRINE:
said date, in the same place, at the same time and on the same occasion.
A continued crime is a single crime consisting of a series of acts but all arising
Jurisprudence (People v de Leon) supports such ruling that the acts are
from one criminal resolution. It is a continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set
dictated by only one criminal design so there is only one crime committed
foot by a single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force, however long a
even if the victims are different.
time it may occupy. Although there are series of acts, there is only one crime
4. It has also been ruled that when 2 Informations refer to the same
committed. Hence, only one penalty shall be imposed.
transaction, the 2nd charge cannot prosper because the accused will be
placed in jeoparfy for the 2nd time for the same offense. Petitioner, having
FACTS: been convicted of the complex crime of estafa and falsification of public
1. Petitioner was accused of the crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public document in the earlier case, she can no longer be held liable for the same
Document. 3 other co-accused were at large. The case only proceeded with crime in this case. Rule against double jeopardy protects the accused from
respect to Consuelo Mallari. She pleaded not guilty. The trial court found being tried for the same offense.
her guilty of the crime charged.
2. Petitioner appealed before the CA but it affirmed the trial court’s decision.
In her motion for reconsideration, she contended that she is placed twice in
jeopardy given that she had been previously convicted, sentenced and
probationed for the same offense. Appellate court still denied the motion
and ruled that the acts accused in the earlier case are different from the acts
in the present case. Hence, this petition.
3. In the 2 Informations charging crime of estafa through falsification of
public documents, Consuelo is accused of defrauding Julia Saclolo and
Remegio Tapawan respectively, using false representations to the effect that
one Leonora Balderas was badly in need of money and was offering a lot as
collateral for a loan of P1500. Mallari was in possession of a Transfer
Certificate Title belonging to Leonora. With the help of a Notary Public,
Mallari also falsified a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage and made it appear
that Leonora Balderas participated in the execution of the document by
signing her name. Using other means of deceit, Mallari also induced the
victims to deliver the money.