People v. Mallari (GR no L-58886, Dec 13, 1998) Facts: Consuelo Mallair together with 3 others were charged with Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document due to the acts they committed when they feloniously defraud Julia S. Saclolo by offering her the title of the land owned by Leonora Balderas as a collateral who was then in need of money. The said title was forged and falsified before Celestino Hallazgo, Hallazgo, notary public, by making it appear that Balderas signed the document which Julia Saclolo paid for the amount of 1,500. The same also happened to Remegio Tapawan. It was when Tapawan found out that he was tolled because the person who posed as Leonora Balderas was a man by the name of Carlos Sunga that led to file the case against Mallari and 3 others involved. Petitioner Consuelo Mallari was sentenced to imprisonment before the CFI. Mallari appealed before the Court of Appeals who affirmed the RTC’s decision with modification as to the penalty. She then contended that the said decision of CA put her twice in double jeopardy.
Issue: WON the acts done by Mallari constitute a continuing crime Held: The court set aside the assailed decision of CA on the ground of double jeopardy. A continued crime is a single crime consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution. It is a continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force. And although there are series of acts, there is only one crime committed hence only one penalty shall be imposed. The crime of estafa thru falsification of public document committed by Consuelo Mallari, although consummated through a series of acts, was done by the single intent or impulse to defraud Remegio Tapawan. And contrary to the appellate court's observation, there was only one deceit practiced by petitionerr on the two (2) victims, that being in need of money, Leonora Balderas petitione Balderas was willing to mortgage two (2) lots as security for a loan. It was, in fact, by mere play of fate that the second victim, Julia Saclolo, should be dragged into the swindle by reason of Tapawan having only P1,500.00 at that time. That there were two (2) victims, however, did not accordingly convert the crime into two separate offenses, as the determinative factor is the unity or multiplicity of the criminal intent or of the transactions for "the fact should not be lost sight of that it is the injury to the public which a criminal action seeks to redress, and by such redress to prevent its repetition, and not the injury to individuals. Thee sin Th singu gular larity ity of th thee of offen fense se co comm mmitt itted ed by Ma Malla llari ri is fur furth ther er de demo monst nstra rated ted by th thee fa fact ct tha thatt the falsification of the two (2) public documents as a means of committing estafa were performed on the same date, in the same place, at the same time and on the same occasion. In the case of People v. de Leon, 10 the court held that the act of taking two or more roosters in the same place and on the same occasion is dictated by only one criminal design and therefore, there is only one crime of theft even if the roosters are owned by different persons.
