Matilde v. Jabson

CRISANTO MATILDE, JR. v. CFI JUDGE RAMON JABSON and PEOPLE

1975 / Antonio

Institution of actions arising from crime > Criminal aspect > Form and content > Substantive > Cause of accusation

FACTS

Three informations were filed against Crisanto Matilde, Jr. and others [laborers at Markes Agro-Chemical Enterprises]. They were charged with qualified theft, in relation to PD 133. The items involved were boxes of insecticides belonging to the company.

The informations were amended twice — the first, on the value of the article involved in one case, and the second, on the nature and character of the offense, changing it from "qualified theft" to "simple theft" by deleting the phrase "with grave abuse of confidence". In view of said amendments, Matilde withdrew his previous plea of not guilty. Upon re-arraignment, Matilde pleaded guilty to the crime of simple theft alleged in the three informations. He was convicted in the three cases. Penalty under each case – 6 months & 1 day of prision correccional to 6 years & 1 day of prision mayor.

            Matilde filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that in the absence of any allegation in the information alleging specifically all the elements of the offense defined and penalized under PD 133, he cannot be convicted and penalized under said decree. CFI denied the MfR.

ISSUE & HOLDING

WON CFI can validly impose upon Matilde the penalty prescribed by PD 133. NO

RATIO

Constitution – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

RoC Rule 110, Section 8 – The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense must be stated in an ordinary and concise language so as to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged; and to enable the court to pronounce proper judgment.

The main purpose of this requirement is to enable the accused to prepare his defense. He is presumed to be innocent and has no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense with which he is charged.

An accused person cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that with which he is charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried. He has a right to be informed as to the nature of the offense with which he is charged before he is put on trial, and to convict him of a higher offense than that charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried would be an authorized denial of that right.

The clear import of PD 133 is to eradicate graft and corruption in society and promote the economic and social welfare of the people, by placing a strong deterrent on workers and laborers from sabotaging the productive efforts of the industry where they are employed, through the imposition of heavier penalties for the theft of any material, spare part, product, or article that he is working on, using or producing. The real nature of the criminal charge is determined by the actual recital of facts in the information. It is not to be determined from the caption or preamble of the information, or from the specification of the provision of law allegedly violated, they being conclusions of law.

The informations charge Matilde simply with theft. Nowhere is it alleged that the articles stolen were materials or products which Matilde was "working on or using or producing" as employee or laborer of the complainant. The fact that Matilde is charged with simple theft "in relation to PD 133" is insufficient.

Appropriate penalty: RPC 309 (3). The penalty is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than P200 but does not exceed P6,000. Considering the plea of guilty, CFI should have imposed said penalty in its minimum period.