9/6/21, 8:24 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 076

624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Yabut

*
No. L-42847. April 29, 1977.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

CECILIA QUE YABUT and HON. JESUS DE VEGA, as
Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch II,
respondents.
*
No. L-42902. April 29, 1977.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

GEMINIANO YABUT, JR., respondent.

Criminal law; Estafa; Jurisdiction; Estafa by issuing a bad

check is a continuing offense.—Estafa by postdating or issuing a
bad check under Art. 315. par. 2(d) of the revised Penal Code may
be a transitory or continuing offense. Its basic elements of deceit
and damage may independently arise in separate places. In the
event of such occurrence, the institution of the criminal action in
either place is legally allowed. Section 14(a), Rule 110 of the
Revised Rules of Court provides: “In all criminal prosecutions the
action shall be instituted and tried in the Court of the
municipality or province wherein the offense was committed or
any one of the essential ingredients thereof took place.” The
theory is that a person indicted with a transitory offense may be
validly tried in any jurisdiction where the offense was in part
committed. However, if all the acts material and essential to the
crime and requisite of its consummation occurred in one
municipality or province, the court of that municipality or
province has the sole jurisdiction to try the case.
Same; Same; Same.—The estafa charged in the two
informations involved in the case before us appears to be
transitory or continuing in nature. Deceit has taken place in
Malolos, Bulacan, while the damage in Caloocan City, where the
checks were dishonored by the drawee

________________

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bbb14160eeeceb1da000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/12
9/6/21, 8:24 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 076

* FIRST DIVISION

625

VOL. 76, APRIL 29, 1977 625

People vs. Yabut

banks there. Jurisdiction can, therefore, be entertained by either

the Malolos court or the Caloocan court. While the subject checks
were written, signed, or dated in Caloocan City, they were not
completely made or drawn there, but in Malolos, Bulacan, where
they were uttered and delivered. That is the place of business and
residence of the payee. The place where the bills were written,
signed, or dated does not necessarily fix or determine the place
where they were executed. What is of decisive importance is the
delivery thereof. The delivery of the instrument is the final act
essential to its consummation as an obligation. An undelivered
bill or note is inoperative. Until delivery, the contract is revocable.
And the issuance as well as the delivery of the check must be to a
person who take it as a holder, which means “(t)he payee or
indorsee of a bill or note, who is in possession of it, or the bearer
thereof.” Delivery of the check signifies transfer of possession,
whether actual or constructive, from one person to another with
intent to transfer title thereto. Thus, the penalizing clause of the
provision of Art. 315, par. 2(d) stages: “By postdating a check, or
issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had
no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not
sufficient to cover the amount of the check.” Clearly, therefore,
the element of deceit thru the issuance and delivery of the
worthless checks to the complainant took place in Malolos,
Bulacan, conferring upon a court in that locality jurisdiction to try
the case.
Same; Same; Same;—The place where the obligation was
constituted is a valid basis for criminal jurisdiction to attach in a
prosecution for estafa. Furthermore, the place of business of the
offended party, the Freeway Tires Supply and Freeway Caltex
Station, is at Malolos, Bulacan, from where the tire and gas
purchases were made by the two private respondents. As a
consequence, payment thereof should be considered effected at
Malolos, Bulacan. “(I)f the undertaking is to deliver a determinate
thing, the payment shall be made wherever the thing might be at
the moment the obligation was constituted. The receipt by the two
private respondents at Caloocan City of the tires and gas supplies
from Malolos, Bulacan, signifies but the consummation of the

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bbb14160eeeceb1da000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/12
9/6/21, 8:24 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 076

contract between the parties. It was the result of an obligation

previously contracted at Malolos, Bulacan. . . . Since in the
instant case it was in Malolos, Bulacan where the checks were
uttered and delivered to complainant Andan, at which place, her
business and residence were also located, the criminal prosecution
of estafa may be lodged therein.

PETITIONS for review on certiorari of the orders of the

Court of First Instance of Bulacan. De Vega, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

626

626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Yabut

          Provincial Fiscal Pascual Kliatchko and Office of the

Solicitor General, for petitioner.
     Zoilo P. Perlas as private prosecutor.
     Geminiano F. Yabut for private respondents.

MARTIN, J.:

Two novel questions of law are presented to Us in these

petitions to, review on certiorari the quashal orders of the
Court of First Instance of Bulacan, sitting at Malolos, first,
the rule on venue or jurisdiction in a case of estafa for
postdating or issuing a check without or with insufficient
funds, and second, whether the new law on checks punishes
the postdating or issuance thereof in payment of a pre-
existing obligation.
Private respondent Cecilia Que Yabut in L-42847 was
accused of estafa by means of false pretenses before the
Court of First Instance of Bulacan, presided over by
respondent Judge Jesus de Vega. The information,
docketed as criminal case 1404, charges:

That during the period from February 22, to February 26, 1975, in
the Municipality of Malolos, Province of Bulacan, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused
Cecilia Que Yabut, as treasurer of the Yabut Transit Line, by
means of false pretenses and pretending to have sufficient funds
in the Merchants Banking Corporation, located and doing
business in Caloocan City, prepared, issued and make out Check
Nos. CB-19035 B, CB-190396 and CB-190397, dated February 22,
1975, February 24, 1975 and February 26, 1975, in the total sum
of P6,568.94, drawn against the Merchants Banking Corporation,
payable to Freeway Tires Supply, owned and operated by Alicia P.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bbb14160eeeceb1da000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/12
9/6/21, 8:24 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 076

Andan, in payment of articles and merchandise delivered to and

received by said accused, gave and delivered the said checks to
the said Freeway Tires supply, the said accused Cecilia Que
Yabut well knowing that at the time there was no or insufficient
funds in the said Merchants Banking Corporation, and upon
presentation of the said checks to the bank, the checks were
dishonored and inspite of repeated demands by the owner of the
Freeway Tires Supply to deposit the necessary funds to cover the
checks within the reglementary period enjoined by law, failed and
refused to do so, to the damage and prejudice of Alicia P. Andan,
owner and operator of the Freeway Tires Supply, in the total
amount of P6,568.94.”

Instead of entering a plea, respondent Cecilia Que Yabut

filed a motion to quash on September 1, 1975, contending
that the

627

VOL. 76, APRIL 29, 1977 627

People vs. Yabut

acts charged do not constitute the offense as there is no

allegation that the postdated checks were issued and
delivered to the complainant prior to or simultaneously
with the delivery of the merchandise, the crime of estafa
not being indictable when checks are postdated or issued in
payment of pre-existing obligation; and the venue was
improperly laid in Malolos, Bulacan, because the postdated
checks were issued and delivered to, and received by, the
complainant in the City of Caloocan, where she (respondent
Que Yabut) holds office.
An opposition was interposed by the People, maintaining
that the new law on checks (Rep. Act No. 4885, amending
Art. 315, par. 2 (d), Revised Penal Code) penalizes the
postdating or issuance thereof in payment of pre-exsting
obligation and that the Malolos court can exercise
jurisdiction over the case, since the last ingredient of the
offense, i.e., damage, transpired in Bulacan (residence of
complainant) after the dishonor of the checks for lack of
funds.
Judge Jesus de Vega quashed the information, as prayed
for by respondent Que Yabut, on November 10, 1975 for the
reason “that the proper venue in this case is Caloocan City
and not Bulacan.” Whether estafa lies for postdating or
issuing a check in payment of a pre-existing obligation was
not resolved by respondent Judge.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bbb14160eeeceb1da000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/12
9/6/21, 8:24 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 076

The People’s motion for reconsideration of this dismissal

order was denied on January 12, 1976.
The other private respondent, Geminiano Yabut, Jr. (L-
42902), husband of respondent Cecilia Que Yabut, stood
charged in criminal case 1405-M before the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan, presided over by Judge Edgardo L.
Paras, of the crime of estafa under Art. 315, par. 2 (d) of
the Revised Penal Code in that:

“(D)uring the period from February 23 to April 9, 1975, in the

municipality of Malolos, Province of Bulacan, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused
Geminiano Yabut, Jr., as president of the Yabut Transit Line, by
means of false pretenses and pretending to have sufficient funds
in the Merchants Banking Corporation and Manufacturers Bank
and Trust Company, located and doing business in Caloocan City,
prepared, issued and make out Check Nos. CB-192042 B, CB-
192043 B, 423123, CB-191988 B, 423124, CB-192044 B, CB-
192045 B, CB-193737 B, CB-193738 B, CB-193739 B, CB-199953
B, CB-199954 B, CB-199955 B, and CB-199956 B, dated February
23, 26, 27, March 1. 3, 10, 11, 12, April 4, 7, 8 and 9,

628

628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Yabut

1975 in the total sum of P37,206.00, drawn against the Merchants

Banking Corporation and Manufacturers Bank and Trust
Company, payable to the Freeway Tires Supply and Freeway
Caltex Station, owned and operated by Alicia P. Andan, in
payment of articles and merchandise delivered to and received by
said accused, gave and delivered the said checks to said Freeway
Tires Supply and Freeway Caltex Station, the said accused
Geminiano Yabut, Jr. well knowing that at the time there was no
or insufficient funds in the said Merchants Banking Corporation
and Manufacturers Bank and Trust Company, and upon
presentation of the said checks to the bank, the checks were
dishonored and Inspite of repeated demands by the owner of the
Freeway Tires Supply and Freeway Caltex Station to deposit the
necessary funds to cover the checks within the reglementary
period enjoined by law, failed and refused to do so, to the damage
and prejudice of Alicia P. Andan, owner and operator of the
Freeway Tires Supply and Freeway Caltex Station in the total
sum of P37,206.00.”

Like his wife, respondent Geminiano Jr. moved to quash

the information on two grounds: (1) the facts recited do not
constitute an offense because the checks were issued in
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bbb14160eeeceb1da000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/12
9/6/21, 8:24 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 076

payment of a pre-existing obligation; and (2) the venue was

improperly laid, considering that the postdated checks
were issued and delivered to and received by the
complainant in the City of Caloocan, where respondent
holds office.
On October 13, 1975, Judge Paras quashed the
information because “(t)he elements of the crime (issuance
of the rubber check, attempted encashment, and refusal to
honor) alleged in the Information all took place within the
territorial jurisdiction, not of Bulacan, but of Caloocan
City.”
The People moved for reconsideration, but on February
9, 1976, the motion was denied.
Hence, the two petitions for review on certiorari were
filed by the People of the Philippines.
We find both petitions to be impressed with merits.
1. Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check under Art.
315, par. 2 (d) of the Revised 1Penal Code may be a
transitory or continuing
2
offense. Its basic elements of
deceit and damage may independently arise in separate
places. In the event of such occurrence, the institution of
the criminal action in either place is legally allowed.
Section 14(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court
provides: “In all criminal prosecutions the action shall be

________________

1 Tuzon v. Cruz, L-27410, August 28, 1975, 66 SCRA 238-39.

2 US v. Rivera, 23 Phil. 390 (1912).

629

VOL. 76, APRIL 29, 1977 629

People vs. Yabut

instituted and tried in the Court of the municipality or

province wherein the offense was committed or any one of
the essential ingredients thereof took place.” The theory is
that a person indicted with a transitory offense may be
validly tried in 3any jurisdiction where the offense was in
part committed. However, if all the acts material and
essential to the crime and requisite of its consummation
occurred in one municipality or province, the court of that
municipality or province has the sole jurisdiction to try the
case.
The estafa charged in the two informations involved in
the case before Us appears to be transitory or continuing in
nature. Deceit has taken place in Malolos, Bulacan, while
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bbb14160eeeceb1da000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/12
9/6/21, 8:24 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 076

the damage in Caloocan City, where the checks were

dishonored by the drawee banks there. Jurisdiction can,
therefore, be entertained by either the Malolos court or the
Caloocan court. While the subject checks were written,
signed, or dated in Caloocan City, they were not completely
made or drawn there, but in Malolos, Bulacan, where they
were uttered and delivered. That is the place of business
and residence of the payee. The place where the bills were
written, signed, or dated does not necessarily fix or
determine the place where they were executed. What is of
decisive importance is the delivery thereof. The delivery of
the instrument is the final 4
act essential to its
consummation as an obligation. An undelivered bill or note5
is inoperative. Until delivery, the contract is revocable.
And the issuance as well as the delivery of the check must
be to a person who takes it as a holder, which means “(t)he
payee or indorsee of a bill6 or note, who is in possession of it,
or the bearer thereof.” Delivery of the check signifies
transfer of possession, whether actual or constructive, from7
one person to another with intent to transfer title thereto.
Thus, the penalizing clause of the provision of Art. 315,
par. 2 (d) states: “By postdating a check, or issuing a check
in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds
in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not

________________

3 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 4, 1970 ed., at 61;

People v. Yumang, L-19569, May 30, 1964, 11 SCRA 299; Tuzon v. Cruz,
ante.
4 People v. Larue, 83 P. 2d 725.
5 Ogden, Negotiable Instruments, 5th ed., at 107.
6 Sec. 190, Negotiable Instruments Law
7 Bailey, Brady on Bank Checks, 3rd ed. at 57-59; Sec. 190, Negotiable
Instruments Law.

630

630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Yabut

sufficient to cover the amount of the check.” Clearly,

therefore, the element of deceit thru the issuance and
delivery of the worthless checks to the complainant took
place in Malolos, Bulacan, conferring upon a court in that
locality jurisdiction to try the case.
Modesto Yambao’s receipt of the bad checks from Cecilia
Que Yabut or Geminiano Yabut Jr. in Caloocan City
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bbb14160eeeceb1da000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/12
9/6/21, 8:24 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 076

cannot, contrary to the holding of the respondent Judges,

be licitly taken as delivery of the checks to the complainant
Alicia P. Andan at Caloocan City to fix the venue there. He
did not take delivery of the checks as holder, i.e., as “payee”
or “indorsee”. And there appears to be no contract of agency
between Yambao and Andan so as to bind the latter for the
acts of the former. Alicia P. Andan declared in that sworn
testimony before the investigating fiscal that 8
Yambao is
but her “messenger” or “part-time employee.” There was no
special fiduciary relationship that permeated their
dealings. For a contract of agency to exist, the consent of
both parties is essential, the principal consent of both
parties is essential, the principal consents that the other
party, the agent, 9shall act on his behalf, and the agent
consents so to act. It must exist as fact. The law makes no
presumption thereof. The person alleging it has the burden
of proof to show, not only
10
the fact of its existence, but also
its nature and extent. This is more imperative when it is
considered that the transaction dealt with involves checks,
which are not legal tender, and the creditor 11
may validly
refuse the same as payment of obligation.
Furthermore, the place of business of the offended party,
the Freeway Tires Supply and Freeway Caltex Station, is
at Malolos, Bulacan, from where the tire and gas purchases
were made by the two private respondents. As a
consequence, payment thereof should be considered
effected at Malolos, Bulacan. “(I)f the undertaking is to
deliver a determinate thing, the payment shall be made
wherever the thing might be at the

_______________

8 See Annex “I”, Petition in L-42902.

9 Chitty on Contracts, Vol. II, 1968 ed., at 2.
10 See Padilla, Civil Code Annotated, Vol VI, 1974 ed., at 208, citing
Rochem on Agency.
11 Tolentino, Civil Code, Vol. IV, 1962 ed., at 283; Art. 1249, Civil Code
of the Philippines.

631

VOL. 76, APRIL 29, 1977 631

People vs. Yabut

12
moment the obligation was constituted. The receipt by the
two private respondents at Caloocan City of the tires and
gas supplies from Malolos, Bulacan, signifies but the
consummation of the contract between the parties. It was
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bbb14160eeeceb1da000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/12
9/6/21, 8:24 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 076

the result13 of an obligation previously contracted at Malolos,

Bulacan. The averments in the informations do not
indicate that the complainant is an ambulant peddler of
tires and gas, but maintains a fixed and determinate place
of business at Malolos, Bulacan, Obligations, therefore,
contracted as regards her business must presumptively be
at her place of business.
2. In general terms, a prosecution for issuing a worthless
check with intent to defraud is14in the county where the
check was uttered and delivered. Thus, where a check was
drawn in Merced County and made payable at a Merced
County bank, but delivered to a merchant in Sacramento
County by the drawer’s agent, the Sacramento County
courts had jurisdiction of a prosecution against the drawer
for uttering
15
a check without funds or credit with intent to
defraud. The venue of the offense lies at the place16 where
the check was executed and delivered to the payee. Since
in the instant case it was in Malolos, Bulacan where the
checks were uttered and delivered to complainant Andan,
at which place, her business and residence were also
located, 17the criminal prosecution of estafa may be lodged
therein. As earlier pointed out, the giving of the checks by
the two private respondents in Caloocan City to Modesto
Yambao cannot be treated as valid delivery of the checks,
because Yambao is a mere “messenger” or “part-time
employee” and not an agent of complainant Alicia P.
Andan.
3. The next point of inquiry is whether or not the
postdating or issuing of a worthless check in payment of a
pre-existing obligation constitutes estafa under Art. 315,
par. 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code. We feel, however, that
due to the absence of concrete evidence on the specific
nature of the obligation assumed or supposedly discharged
by the issuance of the bad

_______________

12 Art. 1251, Civil Code of the Philippines.

13 A contract of sale is consensual in nature. (Art. 1475, Civil Code of
the Philippines.)
14 22 C.J.S. 475.
15 People v. Descant, 124 P. 2d 864, 51 CA 2d 343.
16 Edwards v. State, 337 SW 2d 865; State v. Kaufman, 308 SW 2d 333;
Shepherd v. State, 352 SW 2d 621.
17 See State v. Billington, 36 NW 2d 393.

632

632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bbb14160eeeceb1da000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/12
9/6/21, 8:24 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 076

People vs. Yabut

checks, resolution of this controversial issue on the basis of

the averments in the criminal informations alone is not yet
ripe. As revealed by the pleadings, the parties are at
divergence on the character of the obligation for which the
private respondents issued the checks intended as payment
thereof. Private respondents maintain that the obligation is
a preexisting one. The prosecution, on the other hand,
represented to the trial courts in its Opposition to the
Motions to Quash: “We will prove by our evidence that said18
checks are not in payment of a pre-existing obligation.”
The deferment of the resolution becomes more imperative
when it is considered that the question raised is one of first
impression and of consequential far-ranging effects on
transactions in checks.
4. Ad interim, We hold that the facts charged in the
informations against private respondents, contrary to their
claim, constitute estafa under Art. 315, par. 2 (d) of the
Revised Penal Code. In considering a motion to quash
based on the ground19 “(t)hat the facts charged do not
constitute an offense,” the point of resolution is whether
the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would meet 20
the essential elements of the offense as defined in the law.
The facts21 alleged in the criminal charge should be taken as
they are. An analysis of the two informations involved in
the present case convinces Us that the facts charged
therein substantially constitue the integral elements of the
offense as defined in the law. And the averments in the two
informations sufficiently inform the two private
respondents of the nature and cause of the accusations
against them, thereby22 defeating any constitutional
objection of lack of notice.
ACCORDINGLY, the appealed orders of the respondent
trial courts ordering the quashal of the estafa informations
against the two private respondents in the petitions at bar
are hereby reversed and set aside. The informations, as
they are, substantially conform with the crime charged as
defined in the law. Let the arraignment of the private
respondents in the

________________

18 See Annex “D”, p. 6, Petition in L-42902; Annex (Motion to Quash), p.

6, in L-42847.
19 Sec. 2(a), Rule 117, Revised Rules of Court.
20 People v. Segovia, 103 Phil. 1162, unrep. (1958).
21 People v. Supnad, 117 Phil. 617 (1963).

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bbb14160eeeceb1da000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/12
9/6/21, 8:24 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 076

22 See Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 4, 1970 ed., at 25.

633

VOL. 76, APRIL 29, 1977 633

People vs. Yabut

criminal cases below be set at the earliest date and,

thereafter, the trial on the merits to proceed immediately.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.

     Makasiar, and Antonio JJ., concur.

          Teehankee, (Chairman) J., concurs in a separate
opinion.
     Muñoz Palma, J., concur in the results on the basis
of the allegations in the Information’s.

TEEHANKEE, J.:

I concur on the ground that the informations expressly

allege that the crimes of estafa were committed by
respondents-accused “in the Municipality of Malolos,
Province of Bulacan.” Respondents’ motions to quash on
the ground of improper venue, viz, that the checks issued
by them were issued by them and received by complainant
elsewhere (in Caloocan City) must yield to the express
allegations of the informations, bearing in mind that what
determines jurisdiction are the allegations in the
information and that venue is sufficiently conferred
wherein any one of the essential ingredients of the offense
charged took place.
A quashal motion raising the question of lack of
jurisdiction of the offense charged raises a simple question
of law and imports on the part of the accused-movant a
hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the
information. (Rule 117 secs. 2 and 6; cf. IV Moran’s Rules of
Court 1970 ed., pp. 224, 238 and cases cited).
The informations actually charge that estafa was
committed in two aspects: by obtaining the goods by means
of false pretenses and pretending to have sufficient funds
for the checks issued in payment of the goods, and by
issuing checks without sufficient funds. (Article 315, pars.
2(a) and (d), Revised Penal Code). The questions of
jurisdiction re the first aspects has been duly resolved by
upholding the lower court’s jurisdiction under the
allegations of the informations. The question raised as to
the second aspect, viz, whether the amendatory Act on

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bbb14160eeeceb1da000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/12
9/6/21, 8:24 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 076

checks (Republic Act No. 4885 approved June 17, 1967)

now includes the act of issuing a bad check in payment of a
pre-existing obligation in the crime of estafa, has been
properly ruled as premature. The question of law raised
thereby cannot now be resolved until the facts, e.g. whether
or not the checks were

634

634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Poblador

issued in payment of pre-existing obligations, shall have

been duly established at the trial.
Orders reversed and set aside.

Notes.—A “continuous crime” is a single crime consisting

of a series of acts arising from a single criminal resolution
or intent not susceptible of division. According to Cuello
Calon, when the actor, there being unity of purpose and of
right violated, commits diverse acts each of which although
of a delictual character merely constitutes a partial
execution of a single particular delict, such concurrence of
delictual acts is called a “delito continuando.” For it to
exist, there should be plurality of acts performed separately
during a period of time; unity of purpose which means that
two or more violations of the same penal provision are
united in one and the same intent leading to the
perpetration of the same criminal purpose of aim. (People
vs. Ledesma, 73 SCRA 80).
Estafa is a continuing crime and the receipt by the
accused of the check in one place and his cashing of the
same shortly therefor in another place form part of the
events that make up the body of the offense. (Galvez vs.
Court of Appeals, 42 SCRA 278).

——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bbb14160eeeceb1da000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/12