CRISANTO MATILDE, JR. Y CRUZ, PETITIONER, VS. HON. RAMON B. JABSON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH XXVI OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL AND THE PEOPLE OF T…

Matilde versus Jabson

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Crisanto Matilde, Junior against the Presiding Judge of Branch Twenty-Six of the Court of First Instance of Rizal and the People of the Philippines. Matilde had pleaded guilty to simple theft in three criminal cases, and the trial court sentenced him under Presidential Decree Number 133, the decree that imposes a heavier penalty on workers who steal from their employer. Matilde asks the Supreme Court to nullify that judgment, insisting that the informations against him charged only simple theft and never alleged the facts that would bring him under the decree. The case matters because it is a clean illustration of the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and of the settled rule that the real nature of the charge is determined by the recital of facts, not by the caption or the citation of the law.

Procedural History

Three informations were filed against Matilde and several co-accused before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch Twenty-Six, charging qualified theft in relation to Presidential Decree Number 133. The informations were amended twice: first as to the value of the articles in one case, and second as to the nature of the offense, changing it from qualified theft to simple theft by deleting the phrase grave abuse of confidence. Matilde then withdrew his earlier plea of not guilty and, upon re-arraignment, pleaded guilty to simple theft in all three cases. The trial court rendered judgment convicting him and imposing the penalty under Presidential Decree Number 133. Matilde moved for reconsideration, arguing that the informations did not allege the elements of the offense under the decree, but the court denied the motion. He then filed this petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Facts

On the fourteenth of December, 1973, an Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Rizal filed three informations against Crisanto Matilde, Junior and several others. The informations alleged that the accused, being laborers working at Markes Agro-Chemical Enterprises, conspired and confederated with one Renato Matuto, who was still at large, and with intent of gain and without the knowledge and consent of the firm, took and carried away insecticides belonging to the company. The first case involved ten boxes of Malathion and eight boxes of Endrin valued at nine thousand four hundred fourteen pesos; the second involved thirteen boxes of Malathion valued at one thousand eight hundred two pesos; and the third involved five boxes of Susathion valued at one thousand one hundred sixteen pesos.

The informations were amended twice. The second amendment changed the offense from qualified theft to simple theft by deleting the phrase grave abuse of confidence. Because of this, Matilde withdrew his plea of not guilty and, upon re-arraignment, voluntarily pleaded guilty to simple theft in each of the three amended informations.

The trial court convicted him in all three cases and, expressly in relation to Presidential Decree Number 133, sentenced him in each case to an indeterminate penalty ranging from six months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to six years and one day of prision mayor as maximum. Matilde sought reconsideration, contending that the informations did not allege the elements of the offense under the decree, but the court denied the motion, prompting this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court could validly impose upon the petitioner the penalty prescribed by Presidential Decree Number 133 on the basis of the averments of the informations.

Applicable Provisions

Section 8 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, as discussed in the decision, provides:

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.

This is the procedural rule that gives substance to the constitutional guarantee, and the Court uses it to test whether the informations sufficiently charged the offense under the decree.

Article 309, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, which the Court holds should have been applied, provides:

The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos.

This is the correct penalty because the informations charged only simple theft, and the values involved fall within this range.

Ruling

The Court ruled that the trial court could not validly impose the penalty under Presidential Decree Number 133. The Constitution guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The crime must be described in intelligible terms, with such particularity as to apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the offense charged, so that he may prepare his defense.

The Court stressed that an accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that with which he is charged, and quoted the rule:

It matters not how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an accused person cannot be convicted in the Courts of these Islands of any offense, unless it is charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried, or necessarily included therein.

Examining the informations, the Court found that they charged only theft. Nowhere did they allege that the articles stolen were materials or products which the petitioner was working on, using, or producing as an employee or laborer of the complainant. The Court explained that the clear import of the decree is to impose heavier penalties for the theft of any material, spare part, product, or article that the worker is working on, using, or producing, and that the averment of those facts is essential to qualify the offense and justify the heavier penalty. The reference in the preamble to simple theft in relation to Presidential Decree Number 133 is insufficient, because the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, but by the actual recital of facts. The Court therefore held that the appropriate penalty was that under Article 309, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, which, considering the plea of guilty, should have been imposed in its minimum period for each case.

Doctrine

An accused has the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and the information must describe the offense in ordinary and concise language sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know the offense charged and the court to pronounce proper judgment. The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information, nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, but from the actual recital of facts. An accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that charged or necessarily included in the information, no matter how convincing the evidence of guilt. Where a heavier penalty depends on qualifying facts, those facts must be alleged in the body of the information.

Disposition

The writ of certiorari was granted, the questioned judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded for the rendition of a new judgment imposing the penalty under Article 309, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the real nature of the charge is determined by the recital of facts in the information, not by its caption or the law cited. Examiners use this case to test the right to be informed of the accusation and the rule that qualifying facts for a heavier penalty must be alleged in the body of the information.