Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 68 views

    189 Matilde Jr. V Jabson

    Uploaded by

    Traxex Venti
    1) The petitioner was charged with qualified theft but the information was later amended to simple theft for stealing goods from their employer. 2) The petitioner argued they could not be convicted under Presidential Decree 133, which imposes heavier penalties, because the information did not allege all the elements of the offense under that decree. 3) The court agreed, finding that to convict someone of a higher offense than what was charged in the information would violate their right to know the charges against them. The appropriate penalty was under the Revised Penal Code since the information did not allege that the stolen goods were ones the petitioner was working on or producing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    189 Matilde Jr. V Jabson

    Uploaded by

    Traxex Venti
    68 views1 page
    1) The petitioner was charged with qualified theft but the information was later amended to simple theft for stealing goods from their employer. 2) The petitioner argued they could not be convicted under Presidential Decree 133, which imposes heavier penalties, because the information did not allege all the elements of the offense under that decree. 3) The court agreed, finding that to convict someone of a higher offense than what was charged in the information would violate their right to know the charges against them. The appropriate penalty was under the Revised Penal Code since the information did not allege that the stolen goods were ones the petitioner was working on or producing.

    Original Title

    189-Matilde-Jr.-v-Jabson

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The petitioner was charged with qualified theft but the information was later amended to simple theft for stealing goods from their employer. 2) The petitioner argued they could not be convicted under Presidential Decree 133, which imposes heavier penalties, because the information did not allege all the elements of the offense under that decree. 3) The court agreed, finding that to convict someone of a higher offense than what was charged in the information would violate their right to know the charges against them. The appropriate penalty was under the Revised Penal Code since the information did not allege that the stolen goods were ones the petitioner was working on or producing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    68 views1 page

    189 Matilde Jr. V Jabson

    Uploaded by

    Traxex Venti
    1) The petitioner was charged with qualified theft but the information was later amended to simple theft for stealing goods from their employer. 2) The petitioner argued they could not be convicted under Presidential Decree 133, which imposes heavier penalties, because the information did not allege all the elements of the offense under that decree. 3) The court agreed, finding that to convict someone of a higher offense than what was charged in the information would violate their right to know the charges against them. The appropriate penalty was under the Revised Penal Code since the information did not allege that the stolen goods were ones the petitioner was working on or producing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    CRIMPRO Case Digest Prepared by: Marvey

    189 Matilde, Jr. v Jabson


    TOPIC: The Criminal Information – cause of accusation
    Ponente ANTONIO, J.
    Citation; Date G.R. No. L-38392. December 29, 1975
    Petitioners CRISANTO MATILDE, JR. Y CRUZ
    Respondent HON, RAMON B. JABSON, Presiding Judge of the CFI of Rizal and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
    Case Doctrine Related to Topic
    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. Thus, 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 (even if such higher offense was the caption of the information).

    FACTS
    The Provincial Fiscal of Rizal filed 3 informations against accused Matilde, et al. The informations uniformly stated that
    said accused were charged with the crime of qualified theft, in relation to Presidential Decree No. 133,1 thus:
    That x x x the above-named accused, being then laborers working at the Markers Agro-Chemical Enterprises, x x x all
    of them mutually helping one another, with intent to gain, grave abuse of confidence, and without the knowledge and
    consent of the said firm, its President and General Manager, did x x x take, steal and carry away the following: 10 boxes
    of Malathion E-57 Insecticide, 8 boxes of Endrin Insecticide, and 5 boxes of Susathion Insecticide.

    The informations were amended, changing the offense from “qualified theft” to “simple theft” by deleting therefrom the
    phrase “with grave abuse of confidence”. In view of this, all the accused pleaded guilty. Hence, the trial court, in
    consideration of P.D. No. 133, sentenced them with an indeterminate penalty ranging from 6mos. and 1 day of prision
    correccional to 6yrs. and 1 day of Prision Mayor as maximum, regardless of the values of the stolen objects.

    Petitioner sought reconsideration from the trial court, contending that in the absence of any allegation in the body of
    the information alleging specifically all the elements of the offense defined and penalized under P.D. No. 133,
    he cannot be convicted and penalized under the aforesaid decree. Trial court denied the MR. Hence, this petition
    for certiorari (Rule 65) to nullify the said judgment imposing upon the accused the penalty prescribed in P.D. No. 133
    instead of that imposed by Art. 309 of the Revised Penal Code.

    ISSUE – HELD – RATIO

    W/N despite the absence of any allegation in the information alleging specifically the elements of the offense penalized
    under P.D. No. 133, the accused can be penalized under the aforesaid decree – NO

    It is well-settled that 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.

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

    Nowhere is it alleged in the 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. The clear import of P.D. No. 133 on
    the basis of its recitals 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 appropriate penalty that should have been imposed is that
    prescribed by Art. 309, par. 3, of the Revised Penal Code.

    Writ granted and judgment set aside.

    1
    Presidential Decree No. 133, regardless of the value of the stolen article, imposes a penalty of imprisonment ranging
    from prision correctional to prision mayor.
    Page 1 of 1

    You might also like