Practice question
In a case with the same material pattern as Petron, deceptive goods originate in one city and are subsequently passed off in another as part of the same continuing unfair-competition offense. The first competent court has already taken jurisdiction. A second prosecution for that same offense is filed in the other city. Which accurately describes Petron’s reasoning?
- Every sale anywhere must always be a new offense regardless of the statute and facts.
- No court has jurisdiction because the acts cross city boundaries.
- The first court’s authority depends on proving delito continuado in every case.
- The offense’s continuing nature and concurrent territorial bases were distinguished from delito continuado; the first court’s acquisition of jurisdiction excluded the second over the same offense.
- Venue alone proves the accused guilty.
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.