What is a continuing crime?

● Continuing crime (transitory crime or moving crime) is one where some acts material and essential to the crime and requisite in their consummation occur in one municipality or territory, while some occur in another (Brodeth v. People, G.R. No. 197849, November 29, 2017). 

● It is the term used in criminal procedure to denote that a certain crime may be prosecuted and tried not only before the court of the place where it was originally committed or began, but also before the court of the place where the crime was continued. Hence, the term “continuing crime” is used in criminal procedure when any of the material ingredients of the crime was committed in different places (Dean Ortega).


Venue of continuing crime

●In continuing crime, the court wherein any of the crime's essential and material acts have been committed maintains jurisdiction to try the case; it being understood that the first court taking cognizance of the same excludes the other. Thus, a person charged with a continuing or transitory crime may be validly tried in any municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed (Brodeth v. People, G.R. No. 197849, November 29, 2017)

● Example: A issued a check in favor of B in Makati. B deposited the check in Pasay City but the check bounced. B may file a criminal case for violation of BP 22 either in Makati or Quezon City.


Classes of continuing crime

● There are crimes which are called transitory or continuing offenses because some acts material and essential to the crime occur in one province and some in another, in which case, the rule is settled that the court of either province where any of the essential ingredients of the crime took place has — jurisdiction to try the case. There are, however, crimes which although all the elements thereof for its consummation may have occurred in a single place, yet by reason of the very nature of the offense committed, the violation of the law is deemed to be continuing. 

Of the first class, the crime of estafa or malversation and abduction may be mentioned; and as belonging to the second class are the crimes of kidnapping and illegal detention where the deprivation of liberty is persistent and continuing from one place to another and libel where the libelous matter is published or circulated from one province to another. 

To this latter class may also be included the crime of evasion of service of sentence, when the prisoner in his attempt to evade the service of the sentence imposed upon him by the courts and thus defeat the purpose of the law, moves from one place to another; for, in this case, the act of the escaped prisoner is a continuous or series of acts, set on foot by a single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force, however long it may be. It may not be validly said that after the convict shall have escaped from the place of his confinement the crime is fully consummated, for, as long as he continues to evade the service of his sentence, he is deemed to continue committing the crime, and may be arrested without warrant, at any place where he may be found. Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court may be invoked in support of this conclusion, for, under section 6[c] thereof, one of the instances when a person may be arrested without warrant is where he has escaped from confinement. Undoubtedly, this right of arrest without a warrant is founded on the principle that at the time of the arrest, the escapee is in the continuous act of committing a crime — evading the service of his sentence (Parulan v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-28519, February 17, 1968)


Continuing Crimes:

    1. Estafa
    2. Malversation
    3. Abduction
    4. Kidnapping and illegal detention
    5. Libel
    6. Evasion of service of sentence
    7. Rebellion 
    8. Violation of BP 22 
    9. Violation of RA 9262

● The crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and other crimes and offenses committed in the furtherance (sic) on the occasion thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith under Presidential Proclamation No. 2045, are all in the nature of continuing offenses which set them apart from the common offenses, aside from their essentially involving a massive conspiracy of nationwide magnitude (Umil v. Ramos, G.R. No. 81567 July 9, 1990).

● It is well-settled that violations of B.P. [Blg.] 22 cases are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes, meaning that some acts material and essential thereto and requisite in their consummation occur in one municipality or territory, while some occur in another (Brodeth v. People, G.R. No. 197849, November 29, 2017).

●What may be gleaned from Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262 is that the law contemplates that acts of violence against women and their children may manifest as transitory or continuing crimes; meaning that some acts material and essential thereto and requisite in their consummation occur in one municipality or territory, while some occur in another. (AAA v. BBB, G.R. No. 212448, January 11, 2018)


Venue or where at least one of the elements of the crime or offense was committed must be proven

Fact: The Information charging accused of estafa was filed in Paranaque City. The affidavit complaint alleged that negotiations on the MOA were conducted in a warehouse in Parañaque City. It was, however, established during presentation of prosecution's evidence that the MOA and issuance of check was done in Makati. Accused moved to quash the information contending that the venue was improperly laid in Parañaque City.

Held: While the crime of estafa is a continuing or transitory offense and may be prosecuted at the place where any of the essential ingredients of the crime took place, the Court has ruled that "in criminal cases, venue or where at least one of the elements of the crime or offense was committed must be proven and not just alleged. The jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. Once it is so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction (Cabral v. Bracamonte, G.R. No. 233174, January 23, 2019).