GR L 74652; (May, 1987) (Digest)

G.R. No. L-74652 May 21, 1987
LUCIO DULPO, petitioner, vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Lucio Dulpo, a temporary letter carrier at the Bacoor Post Office, was charged before the Sandiganbayan for the alleged felonious taking of two airmail letters containing international money orders entrusted to him for delivery in January 1985. After trial, the Sandiganbayan acquitted him of the specific charge regarding the money orders due to insufficient proof that the letters actually contained them. However, the court found him guilty of the separate crime of infidelity in the custody of documents under Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code for the loss of the two letters.
Dulpo admitted receiving the letters for delivery but claimed he could not deliver them as the addressee was unknown at the given address. He asserted that, following standard procedure, he returned the letters to the sender by placing them in the dispatch box at the post office. To support this, he referenced a logbook where he allegedly recorded the return. The prosecution, however, presented evidence that the letters were never received back by the sender. Furthermore, the incumbent postmaster, subpoenaed to produce the logbook, could only present logbooks from 1982 and 1983 and testified that no logbook for 1985 could be found.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding Dulpo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of infidelity in the custody of documents, and (2) whether the penalty imposed was too severe.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. On the first issue, the Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s factual findings, ruling that Dulpo’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Dulpo admitted receipt and non-delivery of the letters. His defense of returning them was unsubstantiated. The burden of proof for this defense lay with him, and he could not rely on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty because the prosecution’s evidence directly negated it. The complainant’s testimony that the letters were never returned, coupled with the inability to produce the alleged 1985 logbook, fatally undermined his claim.
On the second issue, the Court agreed that the Sandiganbayan imposed an incorrect penalty. Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes a higher penalty (prision mayor) if the damage to a third party or public interest is serious, and a lower penalty (prision correccional) if the damage is not serious. The Court found the lesser penalty applicable. The Sandiganbayan itself did not sustain the allegation that the lost letters contained money orders, and the letters were sent by ordinary, not registered, mail. The cases cited by the prosecution involving registered mail and acts that severely undermined public confidence in the postal service were deemed not controlling. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years, eleven months, and ten days of prision correccional, as maximum, for each case. The Court also clarified that the “threefold rule” applies to the service of sentence, not its imposition, and thus denied Dulpo’s related motion.