FACTS:

On September 9, 1985, a robbery took place in the house of Jose L. Obillos, Sr. in Quezon City. Various pieces of precious jewelry were stolen. An information for robbery was filed against the perpetrators in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 101.

Subsequently, an information for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law was also filed against the respondent spouses, Danilo A. Alcantara and Isabelita Esguerra-Alcantara, in the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 93. The stolen jewelries were recovered from their possession in Antipolo, Rizal.

The accused filed a motion to quash the information for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, arguing that the court had no jurisdiction because the alleged act of fencing took place in Antipolo, Rizal. The trial court granted the motion to quash and quashed the information for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law.

The private prosecutor's motion for reconsideration was also denied by the trial court.

The People of the Philippines filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus, seeking the reversal of the trial court's orders and for the court to assume jurisdiction over and proceed with the trial of the criminal case.

The Solicitor General argued that the crime of fencing is a continuing offense and since an essential element of the crime is the commission of robbery, the information for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law filed in Quezon City was in accordance with the rules on criminal procedure.

The Supreme Court held that the crimes of robbery and fencing are two distinct offenses. The law on fencing does not require the accused to have participated in the commission of robbery or theft. The place where the robbery or theft occurred is inconsequential. The court also held that there were no compelling circumstances for a change of venue in this case.

The petition for certiorari and mandamus was dismissed and the trial court's orders were affirmed.

ISSUES:

1. Is the crime of "fencing" a continuing offense?

2. Can an information for fencing be filed in the place where the robbery or theft is committed instead of where the property unlawfully taken is found to have later been acquired?

RULING:

1. The crime of "fencing" is not a continuing offense because it is a distinct offense from robbery or theft.

2. An information for fencing can be filed in the place where the robbery or theft is committed.

PRINCIPLES:

• 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.

• The crimes of robbery and fencing are distinct offenses.

• The law on fencing does not require the accused to have participated in the criminal design to commit robbery or theft.

• The place where the robbery or theft occurs is inconsequential in the crime of fencing.