Scribd
Upload
140 views1 page

Qualified Theft Conviction Appeal

Sheala Matrido was convicted of qualified theft for failing to remit payments she collected from real estate clients to her employer. She appealed, arguing the prosecution tried to prove the crime of estafa. The Court upheld the conviction, finding the allegations in the information determined the offense, not the name given by the prosecutor. The acts alleged showed qualified theft, regardless of what name the prosecutor used.

Uploaded by

Cecille Garces-Songcuan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
140 views1 page

Qualified Theft Conviction Appeal

Sheala Matrido was convicted of qualified theft for failing to remit payments she collected from real estate clients to her employer. She appealed, arguing the prosecution tried to prove the crime of estafa. The Court upheld the conviction, finding the allegations in the information determined the offense, not the name given by the prosecutor. The acts alleged showed qualified theft, regardless of what name the prosecutor used.

Uploaded by

Cecille Garces-Songcuan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Sheala Matrido vs People of the Phils.

GR no. 179061, July 13, 2009


Facts:
The petitioner Sheala Matrido is a credit and collection assistant of Empire East
Land Holdings. Her tasked is to collect payments from buyers of real estate
properties and remit the payments to the private complainant.
Sheala Matrido failed to remit payments received from its clients and was
convicted of Qualified theft.
Sheala Matrido avers that the CA erred in affirming the decision despite the fact
that the prosecution tried to prove during the trial the crime of estafa thus
denying the petitioner the right to be informed of the nature and cause of
accusation against her.
Issue:
Whether or not the contention of Matrido is meritorious?
Held:
No.
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.
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 public prosecutor in the preamble of
the information.
In the instant case, the court finds no rhyme or reason in petitioners contention
that what the prosecution tried to prove during trial was estafa through
misappropriation.

You might also like