Matrido vs People
2
Matrido vs People GR No 179061 | July 13, 2009 Facts: Private respondent, Empire East Land Holdings Inc. filed a case against Matrido for estafa in the Makati Prosecutor’s Office for failing to remit payments received from its clients. By resolution, the prosecution office dismissed the complaint for estafa for insufficiency of evidence but found probable cause to indict petitioner for qualified theft. RTC convicted the Matrido of qualified theft and was affirmed by the CA. Petitioner challenges the conviction by contending that despite the indictment for qualified theft, the prosecution was trying to prove estafa during trial, thus violating her right to be informed of the nature and cause o f the accusation against her. Issue: Whether or not petitioner’s contention is tenable. Held: No. It is settled that it is the allegations in the Information that determine the nature of the offense, not the technical name giv en by the prosecutor in the preamble of the Inf ormation. From a legal point of view, it is of no concern to the accused what is the technical name of the crime of which he stands charged. It is in no way aids him in a d efense on the merits. That to which his at tention should be directed, above all thin gs else, are the facts alleged. The real question is not did he commit a crime given in the law some technical and specific name, but did he perform the acts alleged in the body of the information in the manner therein set forth. The recital of facts and circumstances in the Information sufficiently constitutes the crime of qualified theft. As defined, theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, but without violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take the personal property of another without the latter’s consent. If committed with grave abuse of confidence, the crime of theft becomes qualified.
-
Upload
sylver-jan -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Matrido vs People
7/28/2019 Matrido vs People
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/matrido-vs-people 1/1
Matrido vs People
GR No 179061 | July 13, 2009
Facts:Private respondent, Empire East Land Holdings Inc. filed a case against Matrido for estafa in the
Makati Prosecutor’s Office for failing to remit payments received from its clients. By resolution, the
prosecution office dismissed the complaint for estafa for insufficiency of evidence but found probablecause to indict petitioner for qualified theft.
RTC convicted the Matrido of qualified theft and was affirmed by the CA. Petitioner challengesthe conviction by contending that despite the indictment for qualified theft, the prosecution was trying toprove estafa during trial, thus violating her right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusationagainst her.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner’s contention is tenable.
Held:No.It is settled that it is the allegations in the Information that determine the nature of the offense,
not the technical name given by the prosecutor in the preamble of the Information. From a legal point of view, it is of no concern to the accused what is the technical name of the crime of which he standscharged. It is in no way aids him in a defense on the merits. That to which his attention should be
directed, above all things else, are the facts alleged. The real question is not did he commit a crimegiven in the law some technical and specific name, but did he perform the acts alleged in the body of theinformation in the manner therein set forth.
The recital of facts and circumstances in the Information sufficiently constitutes the crime of
qualified theft. As defined, theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, but withoutviolence against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take the personal property of another without the latter’s consent. If committed with grave abuse of confidence, the crime of theft
becomes qualified.
