GR 5156; (September, 1909) (Digest)
G.R. No. 5156
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SEBASTIAN MISOLA, defendant-appellant.
September 15, 1909
FACTS:
On February 6, 1907, Lino Paloma delivered a registered letter containing a P2 bill to Sebastian Misola, the postmaster of La Carlota, for a recipient in Bacolod. The letter was subsequently returned to La Carlota on March 12, 1907, as the addressee could not be found, and it remained in Misola’s custody. Despite Paloma calling several times for registered correspondence, Misola retained the returned letter for almost eleven months until he ceased to be postmaster in January 1908. In February 1908, the new postmaster found the letter and returned it to Paloma. Upon opening it, Paloma discovered the P2 bill and the advice note missing and noticed signs that the letter had been opened. Paloma confronted Misola, who offered to pay the P2 if no action was taken, but never did. Misola was charged with stealing mail matter, convicted by the Court of First Instance, and sentenced to prision correccional and other penalties. He appealed the conviction.
ISSUE:
Is Sebastian Misola guilty of the crime of faithlessness in the custody of documents (violation of mail by a public officer) under Article 360 of the Penal Code?
RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED Misola’s conviction. It held that Sebastian Misola, as a public official (postmaster), was guilty of the crime of faithlessness in the custody of documents (violacion de correspondencia) under Article 360 of the Penal Code. The Court found that Misola committed this crime by: (1) retaining the returned registered letter for nearly eleven months without promptly returning it to the sender, and (2) opening the letter and stealing its contents (a P2 bill and an advice note). The Court stressed that even the mere detention of mail with malicious intent, without opening it, constitutes faithlessness by an officer whose imperative duty is to dispatch mail without delay. The imposed penalty of one year eight months and one day of prision correccional, fine, indemnity, and special disqualification from public office was upheld.