G.R. No. L-41054 November 28, 1975
JOSE L. GAMBOA and UNITS OPTICAL SUPPLY COMPANY, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and BENJAMIN LU HAYCO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Benjamin Lu Hayco, a former employee of petitioner Units Optical Supply Company, was charged with seventy-five (75) separate counts of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code before the City Court of Manila. The informations uniformly alleged that on various dates, Hayco, having collected payments from company customers under obligation to remit them, instead deposited the sums into his personal bank accounts and subsequently withdrew them for his personal use. A related civil action for accounting revealed that during the owner’s hospitalization, Hayco allegedly procured a general power of attorney through fraud, used it to close the owner’s bank accounts, and opened new accounts in his own name to facilitate the misappropriations.
While the criminal cases were pending, Hayco filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of First Instance, arguing that the seventy-five charges constituted only one crime, impelled by a single criminal intent to defraud his employer. The lower court dismissed his petition, finding no single criminal impulse. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the series of deposits and withdrawals constituted but one continuous crime of estafa, arising from a single criminal resolution aimed at defrauding the employer. It ordered the consolidation of all charges into a single information.

ISSUE

Whether the seventy-five (75) separate acts of misappropriation committed by the private respondent constitute a single continuous crime of estafa or distinct and separate crimes.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that the seventy-five acts constitute distinct and separate crimes of estafa. The legal logic centers on the doctrine of plurality of crimes, specifically “real plurality” or concurso real. The Court explained that a continuous crime exists only when there is a single act performed continuously, or series of acts arising from a single criminal intent or resolution. Here, each act of collection from a customer created an independent fiduciary obligation to account for that specific sum. Each subsequent act of depositing a particular collection into his personal account and withdrawing it constituted a complete and consummated act of misappropriation, fulfilling all the elements of estafa for that specific amount. Each conversion was a distinct crime, complete in itself, triggered by his separate criminal intent to appropriate each individual sum. The existence of an overarching scheme or a general power of attorney obtained at the inception does not fuse these separate conversions into one indivisible felony. The Court clarified that the term “continuing crime” in some jurisprudence pertains merely to venue and jurisdiction for transitory offenses, not to the number of crimes committed. Consequently, the filing of seventy-five separate informations was proper, and the temporary restraining order against the Court of Appeals’ decision was made permanent.