Matilde, Jr. vs. Jabson

To justify the heavier penalty under Presidential Decree No. 133, the information must allege in its body that the stolen article is a material, spare part, product, or article that the accused, as a worker or laborer, was working on, using, or producing; a caption or preamble charging theft “in relation to Presidential Decree No. 133” is insufficient, because the real nature of the charge is determined by the actual recital of facts.

Crisanto Matilde, Jr. y Cruz was one of several laborers at Markes Agro-Chemical Enterprises, whose President and General Manager was Marciano K. Espiritu. Presidential Decree No. 133 imposes a heavier penalty for theft by workers or laborers of any material, spare part, product, or article that they are working on, using, or producing. Article 309, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, by contrast, prescribes prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods for theft of property valued at more than P200 but not exceeding P6,000.

On December 14, 1973, an Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Rizal filed three informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 9552, 9553, and 9554 before the Court of First Instance of Rizal against Crisanto Matilde, Jr. y Cruz, Patricio Guiruela y Luna, Ricardo Abener y San Pascual, Edgardo Cape y Atienza, Servando Calpo y Caballero, and Ireneo Belver y Bale. Except for the dates of commission and the amounts involved, the informations uniformly alleged that on or about November 14, 1973, in Pasig, Rizal, the accused, being laborers at Markes Agro-Chemical Enterprises, conspired and confederated with Renato Matuto y Ann, who was still at large, mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent of gain, grave abuse of confidence, and without the knowledge and consent of the firm, its President and General Manager Marciano K. Espiritu, took, stole, and carried away articles belonging to the company. The charges were for qualified theft in relation to Presidential Decree No. 133. In Criminal Case No. 9552, the articles were ten boxes of Malathion E-57 insecticide and eight boxes of Endrin insecticide with a total value of P9,414.00; in Criminal Case No. 9553, thirteen boxes of Malathion insecticide valued at P1,802.00; and in Criminal Case No. 9554, five boxes of Susathion insecticide valued at P1,116.00, all belonging to Markes Agro-Chemical Enterprises. The informations did not allege that the stolen articles were materials or products that the accused was working on, using, or producing as an employee or laborer.

The informations were amended twice. The first amendment concerned the value of the articles involved in Criminal Case No. 9552; the second changed the nature and character of the offense from qualified theft to simple theft by deleting the phrase “with grave abuse of confidence.” In view of these amendments, Matilde withdrew his previous plea of not guilty to the amended informations.

On February 18, 1974, the respondent court promulgated its judgment in the three cases. When the cases were called for hearing, Trial Fiscal Francisco C. Rodriguez, Jr. moved for amendment of the informations from qualified theft to simple theft and for deletion of the phrase “Grave abuse of confidence,” which motion was granted. Matilde, through counsel Atty. Prudencio Cruz, then moved to withdraw his former plea of not guilty in each case and to substitute a plea of guilty in all three cases, which was also granted. Upon re-arraignment, Matilde, assisted by counsel, voluntarily and spontaneously pleaded guilty to the crime of simple theft alleged in each amended information.

The trial court found Matilde guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple theft in each case and, considering his plea of guilty, imposed the penalty under Presidential Decree No. 133. Matilde sought reconsideration of the judgment, contending that in the absence of any allegation in the body of the information specifically alleging all the elements of the offense defined and penalized under Presidential Decree No. 133, he could not be convicted and penalized under that decree. The respondent court denied the motion on March 5, 1974. Matilde then instituted the present petition, raising the issue of whether, on the basis of the averments of the informations, the respondent court could validly impose upon him the penalty prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 133.

• Insufficiency of the Informations: Petitioner contended that because the body of the informations did not specifically allege all the elements of the offense defined and penalized under Presidential Decree No. 133, he could not be convicted and penalized under that decree.
• Invalid Imposition of the Decree’s Penalty: Petitioner maintained that, on the basis of the averments of the informations, the respondent court could not validly impose upon him the penalty prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 133.

• Sufficiency of Informations / Applicability of Presidential Decree No. 133: Whether, on the basis of the averments of the informations, the respondent court could validly impose upon petitioner the penalty prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 133.

• Sufficiency of Informations / Applicability of Presidential Decree No. 133: No. The informations charged only simple theft and did not allege that the stolen articles were materials, spare parts, products, or articles the accused was working on, using, or producing as an employee or laborer; the caption or preamble “in relation to Presidential Decree No. 133” did not supply that essential allegation.

• Sufficiency of Informations / Applicability of Presidential Decree No. 133: The Constitution guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. To give substance to this guarantee, Section 8 of Rule 110 requires that the acts or omissions constituting the offense be stated in 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 statement need not be in the language of the statute; what is important is that the crime is described in intelligible terms with such particularity as to apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the offense charged. The purpose is to enable the accused to prepare his defense, since he is presumed innocent and has no independent knowledge of the facts constituting the offense. The informations alleged that the accused were laborers at Markes Agro-Chemical Enterprises and that they conspired, with intent of gain and without the company’s consent, to take and carry away the articles belonging to the company. However, nowhere did the informations allege that the articles stolen were materials or products that the accused-petitioner was “working on or using or producing” as an employee or laborer of the complainant. The clear import of Presidential Decree No. 133 is to eradicate graft and corruption 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 heavier penalties for the theft of “any material, spare part, product, or article that he is working on, using or producing.” The averment of those facts in the body of the information is essential and necessary to qualify the offense and justify the heavier penalty under the decree. The preamble charging simple theft “in relation to Presidential Decree No. 133” was insufficient, because the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, which are conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information. Accordingly, the penalty under Presidential Decree No. 133 could not be imposed. The appropriate penalty was that prescribed by Article 309, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, which provides for 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, the court a quo should have imposed that penalty in its minimum period—six months and one day to one year, eight months and twenty days—for each of the three criminal cases.

• Right to Be Informed of the Nature and Cause of the Accusation — The Constitution guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. To give substance to this guarantee, the acts or omissions constituting the offense must be stated in ordinary and concise language, with such particularity as to apprise a person of common understanding of the offense charged and to enable the court to pronounce proper judgment; the statement need not be in the language of the statute. The informations in this case failed this requirement with respect to Presidential Decree No. 133 because they omitted the essential qualifying allegation.
• Real Nature of the Criminal Charge Is Determined by the Actual Recital of Facts — 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, since these are mere conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information. Thus, the preamble’s reference to Presidential Decree No. 133 did not make the decree applicable absent the necessary factual allegations in the body.
• Essential Averments for the Heavier Penalty under Presidential Decree No. 133 — To justify the heavier penalty under Presidential Decree No. 133, the information must allege that the stolen article is a material, spare part, product, or article that the accused, as a worker or laborer, was working on, using, or producing. The decree aims to deter workers and laborers from sabotaging the productive efforts of their employer’s industry. Absent such allegation, the offense remains simple theft and the penalty under the decree cannot be imposed.
• Accused Cannot Be Convicted of a Higher Offense Than Charged — An accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that with which he is charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried, or necessarily included therein, regardless of how conclusive the evidence of guilt may be. Convicting an accused of a higher offense than that charged would deny the right to be informed. This principle supported the conclusion that the simple theft informations could not support the heavier Presidential Decree No. 133 penalty.
• Penalty for Simple Theft under Article 309, Paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code — Where the value of the property stolen is more than P200 but does not exceed P6,000, the penalty is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. A plea of guilty is a mitigating circumstance, so the penalty should be imposed in its minimum period. In this case, the minimum period was six months and one day to one year, eight months and twenty days for each of the three cases.

• “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, they being conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information.” — This passage states the controlling principle that the caption or preamble and the specification of the law violated do not determine the real nature of the charge; the actual recital of facts does.
• “Nowhere is it alleged in the body of the afore-mentioned informations that the articles stolen were materials or products which the accused-petitioner was "working on or using or producing" as employee or laborer of the complainant.” — This passage identifies the missing essential allegation that prevented the imposition of the heavier penalty under Presidential Decree No. 133.
• “The appropriate penalty that should have been imposed is that prescribed by Article 309, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code, which provides for 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 passage states the correct penalty after the decree was held inapplicable.
• “Considering the plea of guilty, the court a quo should have imposed the aforesaid penalty in its minimum period (SIX [6] MONTHS and ONE [1] DAY to ONE [1] YEAR, EIGHT [8] MONTHS and TWENTY [20] DAYS) for each of the aforesaid three (3) criminal cases.” — This passage applies the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty and fixes the minimum-period penalty for each case.

• People vs. Mencias, 46 SCRA 88, 98 — Cited to explain the constitutional right to be informed: the accused must be given the necessary data as to why he is being proceeded against and not left speculating; the act or conduct imputed must be described with sufficient particularity to allow proper defense, otherwise due process is denied.
• U.S. vs. Ocampo, 23 Phil. 396 — Cited for the rule that an accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried, or necessarily included therein.
• People vs. Cosare, 95 Phil. 656; People vs. Arnault, 92 Phil. 252; People vs. Oliveria, 67 Phil. 427 — Cited to support the principle that the real nature of the criminal charge is determined by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information, not by the caption or preamble or the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated.
• U.S. vs. Go Chauco, 23 Phil. 641; U.S. vs. Gatmaitan, 4 Phil. 265 — Cited in connection with the requirement that the crime be described in intelligible terms with such particularity as to apprise the accused with reasonable certainty of the offense charged.
• People vs. Abad Santos, 76 Phil. 744, 747 — Cited for the caution that because liberty and even life may be at stake, the accused should be fully apprised of the true charges to avoid surprises detrimental to his rights and interests.

• Article IV, Section 19, 1973 Constitution — Guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The Court used this to require the information to allege the essential facts of the offense under Presidential Decree No. 133.
• Section 8, Rule 110, Rules of Court — Requires the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense to be stated in ordinary and concise language so as to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged and the court to pronounce proper judgment; the statement need not be in the language of the statute but must describe the crime intelligibly and with particularity. Applied to hold the informations insufficient for Presidential Decree No. 133.
• Presidential Decree No. 133 — Imposes a penalty of imprisonment ranging from prision correccional to prision mayor regardless of the value of the stolen article, aimed at deterring workers and laborers from theft of any material, spare part, product, or article they are working on, using, or producing. Held inapplicable absent allegation of that qualifying fact.
• Article 309, paragraph 3, Revised Penal Code — Imposes 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. Held to be the appropriate penalty, to be imposed in its minimum period because of the plea of guilty.

Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Aquino, and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.