People v. Castañeda
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Geronimo Kabigting, as president of the Parish Council of Sto. Tomas, Pampanga, solicited and received funds for the construction of the parish church from July 4, 1971, to April 1973, without securing a permit from the Director of Public Welfare as required by Act No. 4075. As of April 11, 1973, he had collected P10,363.80. Procedural History: Kabigting was charged with violation of Act No. 4075 on August 23, 1976. He moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the crime had prescribed as more than four years had elapsed since July 4, 1971. The Municipal Court denied his motion. Kabigting then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, which granted the writ and ordered the dismissal of the case, ruling that the offense had prescribed. The People appealed this decision. The Petition: The People of the Philippines appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance, principally questioning whether the offense charged against Kabigting was time-barred under the given facts.
Issue(s)
Whether the offense of soliciting contributions without a permit under Act No. 4075 prescribes in four (4) years from the first act of solicitation or from the last act of solicitation, and whether it is a continuing offense. On the application of the prescriptive period for the offense of soliciting contributions without a permit under Act No. 4075.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, reinstating and affirming the orders of the Municipal Court of Sto. Tomas, Pampanga, which denied the motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription. Costs were against the private respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the offense of soliciting contributions without a permit under Act No. 4075 prescribes in four (4) years from the first act of solicitation or from the last act of solicitation, and whether it is a continuing offense: The Court held that the offense is a continuing one. The essential elements of the crime are (a) soliciting or receiving contributions for charitable or public welfare purposes, and (b) the omission to secure a permit to do so from the Director of Public Welfare prior to such solicitation or reception. The law requires a permit to be obtained before soliciting or receiving contributions. If no solicitation or contribution is made, no crime is committed, even without a permit. A permit authorizes multiple solicitations or collections. The Court reasoned that it was not the intendment of the statute to make each single act of solicitation without a permit a separate crime, especially since the offense is treated as a misdemeanor. This interpretation is further supported by the principle that criminal laws should be construed in favor of the accused. Therefore, solicitations or acceptance of donations over a period of time without the requisite permit constitute one offense, regardless of the number of acts. The prescriptive period should be computed from the latest act of solicitation or acceptance, not the first. The Court cited an analogous case involving the collection of attorney's fees in excess of the statutory maximum, where several periodical acts were held to constitute one single, continuing offense. On the application of the prescriptive period: The Court found that the offense was a continuing one, and thus, the prescriptive period should be counted from the latest act of solicitation or collection. The complaint was filed on August 23, 1976. The solicitations occurred from July 4, 1971, to April 1973. Since the offense is continuing, and the last act occurred within four years prior to the filing of the complaint (specifically, in 1973), the crime had not yet prescribed. The Court disagreed with the respondent's theory that the crime prescribed four years after the first solicitation on July 4, 1971. The Court also considered the People's argument that prescription should be reckoned from the discovery of the offense, as provided by Act 3326, but ultimately based its ruling on the continuing nature of the offense.
Main Doctrine
Solicitations or acceptance of donations for charitable or public welfare purposes over a period of time, without the requisite permit to do so, are to be deemed one offense only regardless of the number of such acts of solicitation or acceptance of contributions. The offense is a continuing one, and the period of its prescription shall be computed from the latest act of solicitation or acceptance of contributions, and not from the first.