G.R. No. 165662 - Selegna Management and Development Corp. vs. United Coconut Planters Bank

Sheala P. Matrido was employed as a credit and collection assistant by Empire East Land Holdings, Inc.
As part of her duties, she was responsible for collecting payments from buyers of real estate properties (e.g., Laguna Bel-Air) and remitting such payments to her employer.

On June 10, 1999, petitioner received an amortization payment amounting to P22,470.66 from one Amante dela Torre, as evidenced by the owner’s copy of Official Receipt No. 36547.
Instead of remitting the full amount, petitioner only forwarded P4,470.66 to her employer, with both the owner’s and the treasury department’s copies (bearing her signature) reflecting a discrepancy of P18,000.00.

Private complainant’s investigation revealed that petitioner repeatedly failed to remit payments received from clients.
Various complaints were filed against her, including a Complaint-Affidavit for estafa dated September 21, 2000 (docketed as I.S. No. 2000-I-32381).
In October 2000, petitioner paid a total amount of P162,000.00 to private complainant, leading the latter to desist from pursuing some cases, though others continued due to the admitted liability amounting to P400,000.

The Makati City Prosecutor’s Office, by its Resolution dated November 15, 2000, dismissed the estafa complaint for insufficiency of evidence but found probable cause to indict petitioner for qualified theft.
The Information alleged that on or about June 10, 1999, petitioner, with grave abuse of confidence and intent to gain, unlawfully took P18,000.00 from Amante dela Torre without the knowledge and consent of her employer.

On December 13, 2004, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati convicted petitioner of qualified theft.
The RTC sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty ranging from 10 years and 1 day to 12 years, 5 months, and 10 days, and ordered her to pay P18,000.00 to the complainant.

The Court of Appeals, through its decision dated May 31, 2007, and Resolution dated August 1, 2007, affirmed the RTC’s decision.
Petitioner contended that during trial, the prosecution attempted to prove the crime of estafa despite her indictment for qualified theft, thereby allegedly violating her right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

Whether the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation was violated by the prosecution introducing evidence akin to estafa despite the charge being for qualified theft.

Whether the allegations contained in the Information were sufficiently specific and complete to constitute the crime of qualified theft.

Whether the factual matrix of the case warranted the classification of the offense as qualified theft and not estafa, particularly considering the nature of possession (material vs. juridical) and the relationship of trust.