Continuous/Continued Crime (Delito Continuado)

The concept of continuous or continued crime is a nuanced doctrine under Philippine criminal law that helps distinguish instances where multiple acts constitute a single crime from cases where each act results in a distinct offense. This distinction is essential for determining the proper application of penalties under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Definition

A continuous or continued crime exists when:

There is a single criminal intent or purpose motivating the perpetrator; and
There is a series of acts, performed over a period, that are driven by the single intent, collectively resulting in the commission of only one offense under the law.

Characteristics of Continuous/Continued Crime

Unity of Intent and Purpose: The offender's intent is singular, and all actions are performed in furtherance of that single intent.
Unity of Penal Provision Violated: The series of acts violate only one provision of law.
Series of Acts as a Whole Constituting One Crime: The various acts are considered collectively, and their entirety constitutes a single offense.
Lapse of Time Irrelevant: The fact that the acts are performed on different occasions does not break the continuity of the crime, provided the singular intent persists.

Basis in Law and Jurisprudence

The concept of continuous crime is a creation of jurisprudence and not explicitly defined in the Revised Penal Code. It is grounded in fairness and equity to avoid the imposition of multiple penalties for acts that stem from a singular intent.

Key case laws:

People v. De Leon (49 Phil. 437):
- The Supreme Court defined a continuous crime as a series of acts arising from a single criminal intent, collectively constituting a single violation of law.
People v. Tumlos (67 Phil. 320):
- The doctrine was further clarified, emphasizing the unity of purpose and penal provision.
People v. Lawas (97 Phil. 975):
- Acts committed as part of a single scheme to defraud a specific individual were considered a continuous crime.

Distinction from Similar Doctrines

Real vs. Ideal Plurality of Crimes:
- Real plurality: When separate and distinct criminal acts are committed, each constituting a separate offense.
- Ideal plurality: When a single act violates multiple penal provisions.
- Continuous crime differs in that it involves a series of acts treated as one offense due to unity of intent and legal violation.
Compound Crime (Article 48, RPC):
- A compound crime arises when a single act results in two or more grave or less grave felonies.
- In a continuous crime, multiple acts are performed, but they collectively result in one offense.

Illustrations

Qualified Theft:
- A cashier who, over several days, takes small amounts of money from the employer's cash register with the single intent of stealing is guilty of one continuous crime of qualified theft.
Estafa (Swindling):
- A person who collects money from multiple individuals at different times under a single fraudulent scheme commits one continuous crime of estafa.
Grave Coercion:
- A person who unlawfully compels another to perform a series of acts under the same threat or intimidation is guilty of one continuous grave coercion.

Exceptions to the Doctrine

Crimes with Distinct Intent per Act:
- If the offender forms a separate intent for each act, it will not qualify as a continuous crime. Each act will constitute a separate offense.
Separate Victims:
- Crimes committed against multiple victims generally do not qualify as a continuous crime since each victim represents a distinct injury to a protected right.
- Example: Robbery committed against two houses on different occasions will not be considered a continuous crime.

Requisites for Continuous Crime

Singular Intent: The series of acts are performed with one purpose or criminal design.
Same Victim: The acts are directed toward the same person or entity.
Same Penal Provision: The acts must violate the same legal provision.

Significance in Sentencing

Penalty Imposition: The penalty is computed based on the entire crime as a single violation, avoiding multiplicity of penalties for the series of acts.
Mitigating or Aggravating Factors: The entire criminal conduct is considered holistically in determining aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

Recent Applications

Philippine courts continue to apply the doctrine of continuous crime to achieve equitable outcomes, particularly in cases involving crimes against property, fraud, and coercion. Legal practitioners must meticulously examine the facts to establish whether the requisite unity of intent and penal provision exists.