17. Santiago v.

Garchitorena o The act of giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or
GR NO. 109266 preference is not an indispensable element of the offense of "causing any
December 2, 1993 undue injury to any party" although there may be instances where both
SPV elements concur.
Topic: Continued Crime - We find that, technically, there was only one crime that was committed in
Petitioners: MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO petitioner's case, and hence, there should only be one information to be filed
Respondents: HON. JUSTICE FRANCIS GARCHITORENA, SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division) and against her.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES o The 32 Amended Informations charge what is known as delito
Ponente: Quiason continuado or "continued crime" and sometimes referred to as
"continuous crime."
FACTS - According to Cuello Calon, for delito continuado to exist there should be a plurality
- On May 1, 1991, Santiago was charged with violation of Sec. 3(e) of Anti-Graft and of acts performed during a period of time; unity of penal provision violated; and
Corrupt Practices Act by favoring unqualified aliens with the benefits of the Alien unity of criminal intent or purpose, which means that two or more violations of the
Legalization Program. same penal provisions are united in one and same instant or resolution leading to
- Santiago then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the SC to enjoin the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim
Sandiganbayan from proceeding with the criminal case on the ground that said - According to Guevarra, in appearance, a delito continuado consists of several
case was intended solely to harass her as she was then a presidential candidate crimes but in reality there is only one crime in the mind of the perpetrator
o This was in violation of Sec 10, Article IX-C of the Const: bona fide - Padilla views such offense as consisting of a series of acts arising from one criminal
intent or resolution
candidates for any public office shall be free from any form of harassment
- The concept of delito continuado, although an outcry of the Spanish Penal Code,
and discrimination
has been applied to crimes penalized under special laws.
o SC dismissed
o Under Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code, the Code shall be
- She then filed a motion for inhibition of Justice Garchitorena
supplementary to special laws, unless the latter provide the contrary.
- Sandiganbayan First Division set the criminal case for arraignment
- In the case at bench, the original information charged petitioner with performing a
- Santiago moved to defer arraignment since there was a pending motion for
single criminal act - that of her approving the application for legalization of aliens
inhibition and that she intended to file a motion for bill of particulars
not qualified under the law to enjoy such privilege.
o SB denied
o The 32 Amended Informations reproduced verbatim the allegation of the
- She filed a motion for a bill of particulars, alleging that while the information
original information, except that instead of the word "aliens" in the
alleged that petitioner had approved the application or legalization of "aliens" and
original information each amended information states the name of the
gave them indirect benefits and advantages, it lacked a list of the favored aliens.
individual whose stay was legalized.
o Unless she was furnished with the names and identities of the aliens, she
- On the matter of the Bill of Particulars, the prosecution has conceded categorically
could not properly plead and prepare for trial.
that the accusation against Miriam Defensor Santiago consists of one violation of
- At the hearing on the motion for a bill of particulars, the prosecution stated
the law represented by the approval of the applications of 32 foreign nationals for
categorically that they would file only one amended information against petitioner
availment of the Alien Legalization Program. In this respect, and responding directly
o However, the prosecution filed a motion to admit the 32 Amended
to the concerns of the accused through counsel, the prosecution is categorical that
Informations
there will not be 32 accusations but only one . . . –
- SB promulgated a resolution, admitting the 32 Amended Informations and ordering
o The 32 Amended Informations aver that the offenses were committed on
petitioner to post the corresponding bail bonds within ten days from notice
the same period of time, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988. The strong
o Petitioner's arraignment on the 32 Amended Informations was set for
probability even exists that the approval of the application or the
April 12, 1993 at 8:00 A.M.
legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of the
- Hence, the filing of the instant petition.
pen, as when the approval was embodied in the same document.
o Likewise, the public prosecutors manifested at the hearing the motion for
ISSUE: W/N the 32 Informations filed against Santiago are valid - NO
a bill of particulars that the Government suffered a single harm or injury.
Dispositive
HELD:
WHEREFORE, the Resolution dated March 3, 1993 in Criminal Case No. 16698 of the
- FIRST THINGS FIRST! There are two ways of violating Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019.
Sandiganbayan (First Division) is AFFIRMED and its Resolution dated March 11, 1993 in
(a) by causing undue injury to any party, including the Government; and
Criminal Case No. 16698 is MODIFIED in the sense that the Office of the Special Prosecutor of
(b) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or
the Office of the Ombudsman is directed to consolidate the 32 Amended Informations
preference.
(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.

NOTES
BACK STORY FOR THE INHIBITION:
The reason why Santiago wanted Garchitorena to inhibit is because of a letter in the July 29,
1992 issue of Phil Star which to Santiago, prejudged the validity of the information filed
against her.
- The letter was in response to Teodoro Benigno’s column criticizing SB for issuing a
hold-departure order against Santiago.
o Santiago was about to go abroad for a Harvard scholarship
- Garchitorena said: Mrs. Santiago has never informed any court where her cases are
pending of her intention to travel, whether the Regional Trial Court where she is
charged with soliciting donations from people transacting with her office at
Immigration or before the Sandiganbayan where she is charged with having
favored unqualified aliens with the benefits of the Alien Legalization Program nor
even the Supreme Court where her petition is still pending.

But the SC said:

The letter of Presiding Justice Garchitorena, written in defense of the dignity and integrity of
the Sandiganbayan, merely stated that all persons facing criminal charges in court, with no
exception, have to secure permission to leave the country. Nowhere in the letter is the merit
of the charge against petitioner ever touched. Certainly, there would have been no occasion
for the letter had Benigno not written his diatribe, unfair at that, against the Sandiganbayan.