G.R. No. 179061; July 13, 2009
SHEALA P. MATRIDO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Sheala Matrido was a credit and collection assistant for Empire East Land Holdings, Inc. Her duties included collecting payments from buyers, issuing receipts, and remitting the collected amounts to her employer. On June 10, 1999, she received an amortization payment of ₱22,470.66 from buyer Amante dela Torre. However, she remitted only ₱4,470.66 to the company, as evidenced by a discrepancy between the owner’s copy and the treasury copy of the official receipt, both bearing her signature, reflecting a misappropriation of ₱18,000. An investigation revealed other unremitted collections.
A complaint for estafa was initially filed. Petitioner later paid ₱162,000 to the company, which led to the withdrawal of some complaints, but not all, as her admitted liability was ₱400,000. The City Prosecution Office dismissed the estafa complaint for insufficiency of evidence but found probable cause for qualified theft. An Information was filed, alleging she took the ₱18,000 with grave abuse of confidence, intent to gain, and without the company’s consent. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted her of qualified theft, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for qualified theft, allegedly violating her right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation because the prosecution, during trial, tried to prove estafa.

RULING

The petition is without merit. The constitutional right to be informed requires that the Information contain a specific allegation of every fact constituting the crime to enable the accused to prepare a defense. The nature of the offense is determined by the factual allegations in the Information, not by the technical name given by the prosecutor or the evidence presented during trial.
Here, the Information for qualified theft adequately alleged all the essential elements: (1) the taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking was done without the owner’s consent; (4) the taking was done with intent to gain; and (5) the taking was accomplished with grave abuse of confidence, as petitioner was a company employee with access to the payments. These allegations sufficiently informed petitioner of the charge against her. The fact that the prosecution presented evidence that could also support estafa does not alter the crime charged, as the allegations in the Information clearly constituted qualified theft. A variance between allegation and proof is only fatal if it is material and prejudicial to the accused’s substantial rights, which was not present here. The conviction for qualified theft stands.