G.R. No. 77368 – 45 SCAD 173 – Criminal Law – Continuing Crimes – Fencing is not a continuing crime
In 1985, a robbery was committed in Quezon City where jewelries worth millions were stolen. The said jewelries were later found in the possession of a certain Danilo Alcantara in his house in Antipolo, Rizal.
Subsequently, a Quezon City prosecutor filed an information against Alcantara for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. The criminal case was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Alcantara filed a motion to quash the said information on the ground that the QC-RTC has no jurisdiction over the case. Judge Jose De Guzman ruled in favor of Alcantara.
The Solicitor General argued that what the judge did was wrong because the crime of fencing is a continuing crime; that an ingredient of the crime, that is, the robbery, happened in Quezon City, hence, Quezon City courts have jurisdiction over the case.
ISSUE: Whether or not fencing is a continuing crime.
HELD: No. A “continuing crime” is a single crime consisting of a series of acts arising from a single criminal resolution or intent not susceptible of division. In this case, there are actually two separate crimes which are robbery and fencing. They are independent of each other. The law on fencing does not require the accused to have participated in the criminal design to commit, or to have been in any wise involved in the commission of, the crime of robbery or theft. Neither is the crime of robbery or theft made to depend on an act of fencing in order that it can be consummated. Alcantara should be prosecuted in Antipolo because that’s where the crime of fencing was allegedly committed.
