FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 243328. March 18, 2021.]

PETRON CORPORATION and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 1

petitioners, vs. WILLIAM YAO, SR., LUISA C. YAO, WILLIAM
YAO, JR., RICHARD C. YAO and ROGER C. YAO, respondents.

DECISION

PERALTA, C.J : p

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to annul and

set aside the Decision 2 dated March 20, 2018 and the Resolution 3 dated
November 28, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) issued in CA-G.R. SP No.
143249.
The antecedent facts as narrated by the CA are as follows:
Petitioner Petron Corporation is a corporation duly organized
and existing under the Philippine law and one of the bulk suppliers of
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) in the Philippines. It uses the
trademark "GASUL" for its LPG products and the only entity in the
Philippines authorized to refill, use, sell and distribute Petron Gasul
LPG containers and/or products.
It has come to the attention of Petron that some
entities/establishments were engaged in the unauthorized refilling,
sale and distribution of Petron-owned Gasul LPG cylinders. Among
them was the Masagana Gas Corp. (Masagana). Pursuant to said
reports, Petron engaged the services of Bernabe Alajar of Able
Research and Consulting Services, Inc., for the investigation of
reported violations of the corporation's intellectual property rights
and to gather evidence as may be necessary, among others things.
Mr. Alajar then coordinated with the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) for the investigation of Masagana's illegal activities. Thus,
sometime in February 2003, the NBI agents, together with Mr. Alajar
conducted a discreet surveillance operation on the Masagana refilling
plant located in Trece Martires, Cavite.
On February 13 and February 27, 2003, NBI agent Riche N.
Oblanca and Mr. Alajar conducted test-buys at the Masagana refilling
plant in Trece Martires, Cavite wherein they personally witnessed
Masagana employees in the act of refilling Petron Gasul LPG cylinders
and selling it to them. Cash invoices were issued to them after they
purchased the said LPG tanks.
During their surveillance on February 18, 2003, the NBI agents
and Mr. Alajar followed a ten-wheeler truck of Masagana carrying
Petron Gasul LPG cylinders from its refilling plant in Trece Martirez,
Cavite to its warehouse located in Makati City. Upon arrival at the
Makati warehouse, they noticed that another four-wheeler truck
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 containing Petron Gasul LPG cylinders was parked in front of said
warehouse.
On February 27, 2003, the NBI agents and Mr. Alajar went back
to Masagana's warehouse in Makati City where they saw at least one
hundred twenty (120) Petron Gasul LPG cylinders in the premises.
They were then informed by a Masagana employee that the company
is engaged in the sale and distribution of Petron Gasul LPG. On the
same day, they also purchased another Petron Gasul LPG wherein
Cash Invoice No. 981938 was issued evidencing the sale.
On April 3, 2003, NBI Agents Oblanca and Angelo Zarzoso
separately applied for the issuance of Search Warrants before the
RTC, Branch 17, Cavite City and RTC, Branch 56, Makati City against
respondents for violations of Section 155 in relation to Section 170 of
R.A. No. 8293.
xxx xxx xxx
[A]cting on the Complaint Affidavit of Mr. Alajar, on March 8,
2010, the Task Force on Intellectual Property Piracy of the
Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a Resolution and recommended
that two (2) separate informations for violation of Section 168.3 in
relation to Section 170 of RA 8293; x x x be filed against
respondents.
Pursuant thereto, an Information for violation of Section 168 in
relation to Section 170 of RA No. 8293 was filed against respondents
with the trial court of Trece Martires City (TMC RTC) docketed as
Criminal Case No. 239-10.
[A]n Information for violation of Section 168, in relation to
Section 170 of R.A. No. 8293, was also filed on February 21, 2011
against respondents with the trial court of Makati City (Makati RTC)
docketed as Criminal Case No. 11-529. This is now the root cause of
the controversy.
xxx xxx xxx
On April 15, 2011, private respondents filed a motion to quash
information before the Makati RTC arguing that: a) the trial court has
no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case; b) the facts
charged do not constitute the offense of unfair competition; c) the
accused are being indicted for the same/identical offense arising from
the same act in violation of their rights to be protected against
double jeopardy; d) the information is vague and ambiguous that
violates that right of the accused to be informed of the nature and
cause of the [accusation] against them; and e) factual defenses which
are within the concept of mandatory judicial notice may be
considered in the determination of the motion to quash even if the
same was not alleged in the information.
After the Comment and Reply have been filed, the Makati RTC
issued a Resolution dated June 23, 2011 denying the motion for lack
of merit x x x:
xxx xxx xxx
In the same Resolution, the Makati RTC scheduled the case for
the arraignment of the accused.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 After several postponements, the accused were finally
arraigned on July 24, 2014. All of them entered a plea of "NOT
GUILTY."
Still Undeterred, private respondents filed an Urgent Motion to
Dismiss on December 4, 2014, contended that the two separate
informations filed before the trial court of Makati City and Trece
Martires City for Unfair Competition under Section 168 in relation to
Section 170 of RA 8293, contain the same set of facts, alleged
identical acts, all producing one continuing offense, one single crime,
which necessitate the filing of only one information. Since the
Information for Unfair competition was filed first in Trece Martires
City, the said court has already acquired exclusive jurisdiction over
the same to the exclusion of all others. Thus, private respondents
maintained that the filing of the Information for the same offense
before the Makati RTC is not proper because the pending case before
TMC RTC operates to exclude all other courts from taking cognizance
of the same offense.
On February 16, 2015, taking into consideration the Comment
of petitioner and Reply of private respondents, the Makati RTC issued
an Order denying the Urgent Motion to Dismiss since the issue of lack
of jurisdiction has already been resolved in the Resolution dated
January 23, 2011 based on the Motion to Quash Information with
Motion to Suspend Proceedings filed by the private respondents. The
trial court also ruled that the Motion to Dismiss was a prohibited
pleading at this point.
Undaunted, private respondents filed a Motion for
Reconsideration reiterating that the issues raised in their Motion to
Quash are not similar with the matters surrounding the issue raised in
their Urgent Motion to Dismiss. While private respondents recognized
the jurisdiction of the Makati RTC over the subject matter of Unfair
Competition, the said offense, being a transitory or continuing crime,
barred the court a quo from prosecuting the present case because a
similar case has been earlier lodged before the TMC RTC which
effectively excluded all other courts.
After an exchange of pleadings, i.e., petitioner's
Comment dated March 16, 2015 and private respondents'
Reply dated May 18, 2015, the Makati City RTC issued the
first assailed Resolution dated May 29, 2015 granting the
Motion for Reconsideration. The court a quo held that the
crime of unfair competition is a transitory offense, hence, the
court has no more jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
criminal case since the TMC RTC already acquired jurisdiction
over the same. Thus:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
motion is MERITORIOUS, the same is hereby
GRANTED. Therefore, the Information filed on
February 21, 2011 for Violation of Section 168 in
relation to Section 170 of Republic Act No. 8293
(Unfair Competition) is hereby QUASHED for being
transitory offense; and the court of Trece Martires
had prior taken cognizance of the same, hence this
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 court has no more jurisdiction to entertain the
instant case.
Finally, the cash bonds put up by the five (5)
accused are hereby ordered released to them.
SO ORDERED."
Petitioner Petron sought for reconsideration but was
unsuccessful as shown by second assailed Order dated
September 29, 2015. 4 (Emphasis supplied)
Petron filed with the CA a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of
discretion committed by the RTC of Makati City in issuing the Resolution
dated May 29, 2015, and the Order dated September 29, 2015. After the
submission of the parties' respective pleadings, the case was submitted for
decision.
On March 20, 2018, the CA issued its assailed Decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for
certiorari is DISMISSED. The Resolution dated May 29, 2015 and
Order dated September 29, 2015, issued by the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 149, Makati City in Criminal Case No. 11-529, quashing the
Information dated September 21, 2010, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 5

The CA found, among others, that the RTC correctly quashed the
Information for the crime of unfair competition filed against respondents on
the basis that it is a transitory or continuing crime and since the RTC of
Trece Martires City had taken prior cognizance of the case, it is divested of
jurisdiction to entertain the case. It also ruled that the crime of unfair
competition committed in Trece Martires City, Cavite and in Makati City are
motivated by a single criminal impulse, hence only one crime is committed,
to wit:
Jurisprudence further tells Us that what is being punished in the
crime of Unfair Competition is the act of deceiving or the calculated
maneuver to deceive the ordinary buyer making its purchases under
the ordinary conditions of the particular trade to which the
controversy relates. In this case, the alleged selling of LPG steel
cylinder purportedly containing the appearance of Petron Gasul LPG
products is the means to carry out their primary intention to deceive
the consuming public. The series of acts of selling is but mere
instrument in allegedly violating Petron's intellectual property rights.
On this score, it is of no moment how many, to whom or to where the
purported fake Petron LPG cylinders were sold because there is only
one crime committed, the act of deceiving the public into buying
somebody's product by giving them the appearance of the goods of
another manufacturer.
It must be emphasized that a continued (continuous or
continuing) crime is defined as a single crime, consisting of a series of
acts but all arising from one criminal resolution. Although there is a
series of acts, there is only one crime committed; hence, only one
penalty shall be imposed. In here, the acts of selling the subject LPG
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 cylinders in Trece Martires and in Makati City have common
denominator or single criminal impulse, i.e., to supposedly deceive
the public into buying a product by giving them the appearance of
the goods of another manufacturer, thus constitutive of one single
offense. It must be noted that 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. Worth stressing is the fact
that jurisdiction over the respondent was acquired first by the TMC
RTC, hence the Makati RTC correctly dismissed the similar case
lodged before it. 6
Petron filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied in a
Resolution dated November 28, 2018.
Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari filed by Petron
alleging that the CA erred in ruling that the crime of unfair competition is a
continuing crime (or delito continuado), and in concluding that there is only
one single crime of unfair competition committed in Makati City and Trece
Martirez City, Cavite since there is only a single criminal impulse. 7
Petron contends that the CA mischaracterized the crime of unfair
competition as a continuing crime thereby erroneously concluding that
supposedly there can only be a single crime of unfair competition committed
regardless of the acts involved; that it had gone so far as to declare that
criminal acts of unfair competition committed in Trece Martires City, Cavite
and those committed in Makati City arose from a common denominator or
single criminal impulse despite that the two acts were committed 14 days
apart and that the two cities are separated by a distance of 50 kilometers.
Petron claims that there is a clear distinction between the concepts of
continuing crime, which is a concept used to determine the criminal liability
arising from a series of acts, and a transitory crime, which is a concept in a
criminal procedure used to determine territorial jurisdiction for crimes, the
elements of which occurred in different jurisdictions.
While the crime of unfair competition is a transitory crime, since its
elements may occur in different jurisdictions, it is not a continuing crime
since the distinct acts of selling counterfeit goods on different dates and in
different locations do not arise from a single criminal impulse. The elements
of fraud and deception in unfair competition only materialized during the act
of selling of counterfeit goods, thus each sale of counterfeit goods
constitutes an independent unlawful act of deceiving the public which is
separate and distinct commission of the crime of unfair competition; and
that the notion of single criminal impulse is inherently incongruent with the
elements, nature and purpose of unfair competition provisions of Republic
Act No. 8293. Thus, the respondents' alleged crime of unfair competition
committed in Makati City is independent and separate from that which was
committed in Trece Martires City, Cavite; and that the Makati RTC has
jurisdiction to hear the unfair competition case lodged with it
notwithstanding the unfair competition case earlier filed by petitioner
against them at the RTC, Trece Martires City.
Petron also contends that there are several consumers who are
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 deceived into believing that Petron is the source of Masagana's goods as a
result of separate and distinct sales, hence each consumer is an offended
party that can initiate separate and distinct complaints for the crime of
unfair competition and the liability therefore cannot be limited to a single
offense.
The issue before us is whether the CA correctly found no grave abuse
of discretion committed by the Makati RTC in quashing the information for
the crime of unfair competition filed against respondents on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction.
Preliminarily, we address the procedural issue raised by the
respondents in their Comment that the instant petition for review which
ultimately seeks the reversal of the RTC's quashal of the information in
Criminal Case No. 11-529 should not be given due course as it was only filed
by Petron, a mere private complainant, and not by the People as represented
by the Solicitor General.
There is no dispute that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has
the authority to represent the government in all criminal proceedings before
the CA or the Supreme Court. In People v. Piccio, 8 we held:
[I]t is well-settled that the authority to represent the State in
appeals of criminal cases before the Court and the CA is vested solely
in the OSG which is the law office of the Government whose specific
powers and functions include that of representing the Republic and/or
the people before any court in any action which affects the welfare of
the people as the ends of justice may require. Explicitly, Section
35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code
provides that:
SECTION 35. Powers and Functions. — The Office of the
Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines,
its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any
litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of
lawyers. x x x. It shall have the following specific powers and
functions:
(1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court
and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings;
represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or
tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in
which the Government or any officer thereof in his official
capacity is a party.
Accordingly, jurisprudence holds that if there is a dismissal of a
criminal case by the trial court or if there is an acquittal of the
accused, it is only the OSG that may bring an appeal on the criminal
aspect representing the People. The rationale therefor is rooted in the
principle that the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal
action is the People and not the petitioners who are mere complaining
witnesses. For this reason, the People are therefore deemed as the
real parties in interest in the criminal case and, therefore, only the
OSG can represent them in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 in this Court. In view of the corollary principle that every action must
be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest
who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or
by the party entitled to the avails of the suit, an appeal of the criminal
case not filed by the People as represented by the OSG is perforce
dismissible. The private complainant or the offended party may,
however, file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG but only
insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned. He may also
file a special civil action for certiorari even without the intervention of
the OSG, but only to the end of preserving his interest in the civil
aspect of the case.
Here, it is clear that petitioners did not file their appeal merely
to preserve their interest in the civil aspect of the case. Rather, by
seeking the reversal of the RTC's quashal of the information in
Criminal Case No. 06-875 and thereby seeking that the said court be
directed to set the case for arraignment and to proceed with trial, it is
sufficiently clear that they sought the reinstatement of the criminal
prosecution of respondents for libel. Being an obvious attempt to
meddle into the criminal aspect of the case without the conformity of
the OSG, their recourse, in view of the above discussed principles,
must necessarily fail. To repeat, the right to prosecute criminal cases
pertains exclusively to the People, which is therefore the proper party
to bring the appeal through the representation of the OSG. 9
In the instant petition, Petron seeks to assail the CA decision which
affirmed the RTC's quashal of the Information for unfair competition against
respondents and prays for the RTC to proceed with the continuation of the
trial of the case. Hence, it is only the OSG which may bring an appeal on the
criminal aspect representing the People, and not merely by Petron. Notably,
however, the OSG had filed its Manifestation and Motion 10 dated February
11, 2019, adopting the petition for review filed by Petron and stating that the
People of the Philippines is joining the present petition as co-petitioner. In
effect, the OSG is giving its conformity to the filing of this petition.
Now on the merits of the case.
Respondents, as Directors and Officers of Masagana Gas Corporation,
were charged on February 21, 2011 in the RTC of Makati City with the crime
of unfair competition for their alleged acts of selling and offering for sale
liquefied petroleum gas with the appearance of Petron in steel cylinders
belonging to Petron, that such would likely influence purchasers to believe
that the goods are those of Petron which deceived the public and defraud
Petron of its legitimate trade. Earlier, on July 2, 2010, respondents were
already charged with unfair competition for the same act committed in
Cavite on February 13, 2003. Respondents filed with the RTC of Makati City a
Motion to Quash Information which was denied, and later, a Motion to
Dismiss, which was also denied. However, on motion for reconsideration, the
RTC of Makati City quashed the information finding that the crime of unfair
competition is a transitory offense, and since the RTC of Trece Martirez City,
Cavite had taken prior cognizance of the case, it has no more jurisdiction to
entertain the same. The CA found no grave abuse of discretion committed by
the RTC in quashing the Information.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 We find no reversible error committed by the CA.
Section 15 (a), Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure provides:
(a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be instituted
and tried in the court or municipality or territory where the offense
was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred.
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, and this is called
continued crime. 11
I n Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Supergreen, Incorporated, 12
which was cited by the RTC of Makati City to support the quashing of the
Information for the crime of unfair competition filed against respondents,
one of the issues raised therein is whether or not the offenses involved in the
subject search warrants, i.e., unfair competition, are continuing crimes which
may be validly tried in another jurisdiction where the offense was partially
committed. We held that the crime of unfair competition is a transitory or
continuing offense, to wit:
Respondent's imitation of the general appearance of
petitioner's goods was done allegedly in Cavite. It sold the goods
allegedly in Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila. The alleged acts would
constitute a transitory or continuing offense. Thus, clearly, under
Section 2 (b) of Rule 126, Section 168 of Rep. Act No. 8293 and
Article 189 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, petitioner may apply for a
search warrant in any court where any element of the alleged offense
was committed, including any of the courts within the National Capital
Region (Metro Manila). 13
Petron, however, claims that in Sony Computer, the crime of unfair
competition is characterized as a transitory crime only insofar as the
transitory nature of the offense is concerned, i.e., the essential ingredients of
the offense may be committed in different jurisdictions. We never held that
the crime of unfair competition is a delito continuado or continued crime as
to limit criminal liability to a single offense.
We are not persuaded.
The ruling in Sony Computer shows that the act of imitation done in
Cavite and the selling made in Mandaluyong are not considered separate
offenses of the crime of unfair competition but constitute an ingredient
thereof; and that the violation of the law is deemed continuing.
Unfair competition is characterized as a continuing offense because of
the very nature of the crime. Section 168 of Republic Act No. 8293, known
as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, describes the acts
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 constituting the crime of unfair competition, to wit:
SECTION 168. Unfair Competition, Rights, Regulation and
Remedies. — 168.1. A person who has identified in the mind of the
public the goods he manufactures or deals in, his business or services
from those of others, whether or not a registered mark is employed,
has a property right in the goodwill of the said goods, business or
services so identified, which will be protected in the same manner as
other property rights.
168.2. Any person who shall employ deception or any other
means contrary to good faith by which he shall pass off the goods
manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or
services for those of the one having established such goodwill, or who
shall commit any acts calculated to produce said result, shall be
guilty of unfair competition, and shall be subject to an action therefor.
168.3. In particular, and without in any way limiting the scope of
protection against unfair competition, the following shall be deemed
guilty of unfair competition:
(a) Any person, who is selling his goods and gives them the
general appearance of goods of another manufacturer or dealer,
either as to the goods themselves or in the wrapping of the packages
in which they are contained, or the devices or words thereon, or in
any other feature of their appearance, which would be likely to
influence purchasers to believe that the goods offered are those of a
manufacturer or dealer, other than the actual manufacturer or dealer,
or who otherwise clothes the goods with such appearance as shall
deceive the public and defraud another of his legitimate trade, or any
subsequent vendor of such goods or any agent of any vendor
engaged in selling such goods with a like purpose.
From jurisprudence, unfair competition has been defined as the
passing off (or palming off) or attempting to pass off upon the public of the
goods or business of one person as the goods or business of another with
the end and probable effect of deceiving the public. 14 Passing off (or
palming off) takes place where the defendant, by imitative devices on the
general appearance of the goods, misleads prospective purchasers into
buying his merchandise under the impression that they are buying that of his
competitors. 15 Thus, the main element of unfair competition is passing off
and one way of committing the crime is by sale.
In this case, the complaint affidavit alleged that the NBI agents
together with Mr. Alajar conducted test-buys at the respondents' Masagana
refilling plant in Trece Martires, Cavite on February 13 and 27, 2003 and
they personally witnessed Masagana employees refilled the Petron Gasul
LPG cylinders which were sold to them. During a surveillance on February
18, 2003, the NBI agents and Mr. Alajar observed a delivery truck marked
with Masagana Gas Corp. carrying Petron Gasul LPG cylinders coming from
its refilling plant in Trece Martirez City, Cavite, and they followed it as it
made its way to a warehouse located in Makati City; and there, they noticed
that another truck loaded with Petron Gasul LPG cylinders was parked in
front of the said warehouse. On February 27, 2003, the NBI agents and Mr.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Alajar went back to Masagana's warehouse in Makati City where they were
informed by a Masagana employee that the company is engaged in the sale
and distribution of Petron Gasul LPG so they purchased another Petron Gasul
LPG thereat.
As can be seen from the complaint, the Petron owned gasul tanks were
allegedly refilled by respondents at their Trece Martires City refilling plant
and were sold therein. Thus, the crime of unfair competition was already
consummated in Trece Martires City. However, respondents continued to
pass off the Petron gasul tanks as their own by subsequently selling the
same in Makati City, hence, there is a continuing violation of the law.
Therefore, the sales made in Cavite and Makati City cannot be considered as
separate offenses of unfair competition as they merely constitute the
ingredients of the crime.
In transitory or continuing offenses in which some acts material and
essential to the crime and requisite to its consummation occur in one
province and some in another, the court of either province has jurisdiction to
try the case. Here, both the RTC of Cavite and Makati City have jurisdiction
to try the case for unfair competition filed against respondents. However, it
has been held that in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the court first
acquiring jurisdiction excludes the other courts. 16 Since it is the RTC of
Trece Martires City, Cavite which had earlier acquired jurisdiction over the
case of unfair competition filed against respondents, the RTC of Makati City
correctly quashed the Information filed with it for lack of jurisdiction.
The crime of unfair competition is a continuing crime and cannot be
considered as delito continuado. In Santiago v. Hon. Justice Garchitorena, 17
we discussed the concept of delito continuado or continuous or continued
crimes, to wit:
[I]t should be borne in mind that the concept of delito
continuado has been a vexing problem in Criminal Law — difficult as
it is to define and more difficult to apply.
Accordingly to Cuello Calon, for delito continuado to exist there
should be a plurality of acts performed during a period of time; unity
of penal provision violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose,
which means that two or more violations of the same penal provisions
are united in one and same intent or resolution leading to the
perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim.
Accordingly to Guevarra, in appearance, a delito continuado
consists of several crimes but in reality there is only one crime in the
mind of the perpetrator.
Padilla views such offense as consisting of a series of acts
arising from one criminal intent or resolution.
Applying the concept of delito continuado, we treated as
constituting only one offense the following cases:
(1) The theft of 13 cows belonging to two different owners
committed by the accused at the same place and at the same period
of time.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 (2) The theft of six roosters belonging to two different
owners from the same coop and at the same period of time.
(3) The theft of two roosters in the same place and on the
same occasion.
(4) The illegal charging of fees for services rendered by a
lawyer every time he collects veteran's benefits on behalf of a client,
who agreed that the attorney's fees shall be paid out of said benefits.
The collection of the legal fees were impelled by the same motive,
that of collecting fees for services rendered, and all acts of collection
were made under the same criminal impulse.
On the other hand, we declined to apply the concept to the following
cases:
(1) Two estafa cases, one of which was committed during
the period from January 19 to December 1955 and the other from
January 1956 to July 1956. The said acts were committed on two
different occasions.
(2) Several malversations committed in May, June and July,
1936, and falsifications to conceal said offenses committed in August
and October 1936. The malversations and falsifications "were not the
result of only one purpose or of only one resolution to embezzle and
falsify x x x."
(3) Two estafa cases, one committed in December 1963
involving the failure of the collector to turn over the installments for a
radio and the other in June 1964 involving the pocketing of the
installments for a sewing machine.
(4) 75 estafa cases committed by the conversion by the
agent of collections from customers of the employer made on
different dates.
The concept of delito continuado, although an outcrop of the
Spanish Penal Code, has been applied to crimes penalized under
special laws, e.g., violation of R.A. No. 145 penalizing the charging of
fees for services rendered following up claims for war veteran's
benefits.
xxx xxx xxx
In the case at bench, the original information charged petitioner
with performing a single criminal act — that of her approving the
application for legalization of aliens not qualified under the law to
enjoy such privilege.
The original information also averred that the criminal act: (i)
committed by petitioner was in violation of a law — Executive Order
No. 324 dated April 13, 1988, (ii) caused an undue injury to one
offended party, the Government, and (iii) was done on a single day,
i.e., on or about October 17, 1988.
The 32 Amended Informations reproduced verbatim the
allegation of the original information, except that instead of the word
"aliens" in the original information each amended information states
the name of the individual whose stay was legalized.
xxx xxx xxx
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 The 32 Amended Informations aver that the offenses were
committed on the same period of time, i.e., on or about October 17,
1988. The strong probability even exists that the approval of the
application or the legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by
a single stroke of the pen, as when the approval was embodied in the
same document. 18 (Citations omitted and underscoring supplied)
Gleaned from the foregoing, for a crime to be considered as delito
continuado (continued or continuous crime), there must be plurality of acts
committed by the actor against different parties on the same occasion with
the same criminal intent or purpose of violating the same penal provision. A
delito continuado is a continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set on foot
by a single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force, however long a
time it may occupy. 19 Here, respondents did not commit on the same
occasion several acts of passing off their gas tanks as that of Petron or other
parties. Rather, respondents only continued or repeated the alleged singular
crime committed in Cavite and all the way up to Makati. Hence, unfair
competition does not fall under the criterion of a delito continuado. And
there are also no two separate crimes of unfair competition allegedly
committed by respondents.
Petron's contention that since several consumers had been deceived
into believing that they were buying Petron owned gasul tanks so they can
initiate separate and distinct complaints for the crime of unfair competition
is not meritorious. It is only the owners of the trademark who can file a case
for unfair competition for deceptive trade practices. In US v. Kyburz , 20 we
held:
The rule which protects against unfair competition is primarily
for the protection of the party against whom such competition is
directed, and only incidentally for the protection of the public. In
some of the cases language is used which would suggest that the
public is under the protection of the court, but in fact the liability of
the article to mislead the public is only an element of proof in the
plaintiff's case, the evidence showing that he has been or may be
injured by the fraudulent acts of the defendant. The court therefore,
does not interfere for the purpose of preventing the public from being
misled, except in so far as it is necessary to protect the owner of a
business from its fraudulent invasion by others. If what is done tends
to mislead the public, it naturally diverts customers from the
complainant, to the injury of his business. The prohibition is upon so
acting as to beguile the public, and thus mislead an intending
purchaser into buying the goods of one person under the belief that
he is buying those of a rival. 21 (Citation omitted)
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The
Decision dated March 20, 2018 and the Resolution dated November 28, 2018
of the Court of Appeals issued in CA-G.R. SP No. 143249 are hereby
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Caguioa, Carandang, Zalameda and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 Footnotes
1. Per Resolution dated June 26, 2019, the People of the Philippines is impleaded as
co-petitioner; rollo, p. 1031-A.

2. Penned by Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurred in by Justices

Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Jane Aurora C. Lantion; rollo, Vol. I, pp.
95-109.

3. Id. at 112-114.

4. Id. at 95-101.
5. Id. at 108-109.

6. Id. at 106-107.
7. Id. at 54.

8. 740 Phil. 616 (2014).

9. Id. at 621-623.
10. Rollo , Vol. II, pp. 1020-1024.

11. Parulan v. Director of Prisons, 130 Phil. 641, 644 (1968).

12. 547 Phil. 639 (2007).

13. Id. at 645-646.

14. Superior Commercial Enterprises, Inc. v. Kunnan Enterprises Ltd., et al., 632
Phil. 546, 571 (2010).
15. Republic Gas Corp., et al. v. Petron Corp., et al., 711 Phil. 348, 361 (2013).

16. See Lee v. Presiding Judge, MTC Legaspi City , 229 Phil. 405, 414 (1986), citing
Laquian v. Baltazar, 142 Phil. 531, 536 (1970).
17. 298-A Phil. 164 (1993).

18. Id. at 174-178.

19. People v. De Leon , 608 Phil. 701, 722 (2009).

20. Unites States v. Kyburz , 28 Phil. 475 (1914).

21. Id. at 482.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com