G.R. No. L-38392 December 29, 1975
CRISANTO MATILDE, JR. Y CRUZ, petitioner, vs. HON. RAMON B. JABSON, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch XXVI of the Court of First Instance of Rizal and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Crisanto Matilde, Jr. y Cruz was charged with qualified theft of insecticides from his employer, Markes Agro-Chemical Enterprises, in three separate criminal cases. The informations were later amended to charge simple theft by deleting the allegation of “grave abuse of confidence.” Upon re-arraignment, petitioner pleaded guilty to the amended informations, which were captioned as simple theft “in relation to Presidential Decree No. 133.” The trial court convicted him and imposed the heavier penalty prescribed under P.D. No. 133, which applies specifically to theft by a laborer of any material he is working on or producing, regardless of the value stolen.
Petitioner sought reconsideration, arguing that the informations did not contain factual averments necessary to bring the case under P.D. No. 133. The trial court denied his motion. He then filed this petition for certiorari, contending that the penalty under the Revised Penal Code, not P.D. No. 133, should apply since the informations lacked the essential allegations required by the decree.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court validly imposed the penalty under Presidential Decree No. 133 based solely on the preamble of the informations stating the charge was “in relation to” said decree, despite the absence of specific factual allegations in the body of the informations to qualify the offense under that decree.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the judgment. The constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation requires that the facts constitutive of the offense must be alleged in the information. The real nature of the charge is determined not by the caption or the cited law, but by the actual factual recitals.
For the heavier penalty under P.D. No. 133 to apply, the information must specifically allege that the accused was a laborer and that the stolen items were materials he was working on, using, or producing. The mere preamble reference “in relation to P.D. No. 133” is a conclusion of law, insufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirement. Since the amended informations only alleged simple theft without these qualifying facts, the applicable penalty is that under Article 309(3) of the Revised Penal Code for theft where the value exceeds 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos. Considering petitioner’s plea of guilty, the penalty should be prision correccional in its minimum period for each case.