Practice question
An accountable officer makes separate misappropriations on different occasions over several months and later creates separate falsified records to hide them. The only asserted unity is a continuing desire for personal enrichment and use of the same method. No indivisible original resolution is established. Which analysis follows the governing distinction?
- The broad shared motive and method do not automatically establish delito continuado; the separate acts and resolutions must be examined.
- Every repeated money offense by one officer is necessarily one crime.
- The same handwriting conclusively proves one indivisible resolution.
- Time-separated offenses automatically become transitory venue questions only.
- Later falsification makes all earlier takings one physical act.
Legal references
- People v Ramoy, G.R. No. 212738, March 9, 2022, main decision, distinctions among plurality and continuing offenses: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/mar2022/gr_212738_2022.html
- Petron Corporation v Yao, G.R. No. 243328, March 18, 2021, main decision, continuing/transitory offense distinguished from delito continuado: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/mar2021/gr_243328_2021.html
- Navaja v De Castro, G.R. No. 180969, September 11, 2017, main decision, indivisible criminal resolution and partial execution: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/sep2017/gr_180969_2017.html
- People v Sendaydiego, G.R. Nos. L-33253 and L-33254, January 20, 1978, main decision, falsification to conceal malversation distinguished from necessary means: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1978/jan1978/gr_33254_1978.html
- Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 110 Section 15, place of institution and trial: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.