G.R. No.

179061               July 13, 2009 J Morales

SHEALA P. MATRIDO, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS:
Empire East Land Holdings, Inc. filed estafa against petitioner Sheala Matrido for failing to remit
payments received from its clients, one among wherein on June 10, 1999, Matrido received
amortization payment from a certain Amante dela Torre in the amount of P22, 470.66 but
remitted only P4, 470.66, reflecting a difference of P18, 000. By resolution, the complaint was
dismissed for insufficiency of evidence; rather, Matrido was indicted for qualified theft. Petitioner
challenged such conviction, claiming that the CA erred in affirming the Trial Court’s decision of
convicting her of qualified theft when the prosecution was trying to prove the crime of estafa
against her thus denying her the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
against her. To convict her of a ground not alleged while he is concentrating his defense against
the ground alleged would plainly be unfair and underhanded.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Matrido’s petition was tenable.

RULING:
No. The Court maintained that what is fundamental is that every element constituting the
offense must be provided in the information to which in this case, the facts given in the
information constituted that of qualified theft and not estafa. It was settled that it is the
allegations in the information that determine the nature of the offense, not the technical name
given by the public prosecutor in its preamble. The real question was not whether she actually
committed the crime identified with a technical and specific name (in this case, estafa), but
whether she performed the acts alleged in the body of the information which constituted
qualified theft.

The information provided that Matrido took the amount of P18,000 with the intent to gain and
without the use of force upon things or violence against or intimidation of persons; the said
amount a personal property belonging to private complainant and the possession without its
knowledge and consent thereby gravely abusing the confidence reposed on her as a credit and
collection assistant. The Court noted that the principal distinction between the two crimes is that
in theft, the thing is taken while in estafa, the accused receives the property and converts it to
his/her own use or benefit. In terms of juridical possession, Matrido’s claim that she had no
juridical possession over the amount as an agent of the private complainant was assailed by the
Court since her possession of the cash belonging to the Empire is akin to that of a bank teller.
Ergo, in establishing that she is the bank’s employee and not an agent, her acts have proven
grave abuse of confidence as she is granted access by the bank to the funds collectible from its
clients.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of May 31, 2007 and Resolution of August 1, 2007 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 29593 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the imposed
penalty, such that petitioner, Sheala P. Matrido, is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty
of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day
of reclusion temporal, as maximum.