G.R. No. 5805

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOAQUIN ROMERO, defendant-appellant.

September 16, 1910

FACTS: Joaquin Romero, the postmaster and telegraph operator in Paniqui, Tarlac, received two telegrams from a sender named Eugenio on April 24, 1908, for transmission.
1. The first telegram, addressed to Mariano de la Cruz in Olongapo, originally contained 21 words. Romero received P1.26 for its transmission but reduced it to 9 words, omitting 12 words, thereby gaining P0.72.
2. The second telegram, addressed to Severino Maguigao in Los Baños, had 8 words omitted by Romero, from which he gained P0.48.
In total, Romero received P2.34 for both telegrams but only affixed stamps worth P0.54 and P0.60, respectively, effectively appropriating the difference. He also confessed to a P3 shortage in postal funds. Romero was charged with falsification of telegrams. He alleged that he made an error in recounting the words and was thus obliged to diminish them. The Court of First Instance of Tarlac found him guilty and sentenced him to three years and seven months of prision correccional. Romero appealed this judgment.

ISSUE: Whether Joaquin Romero, as a public official in charge of the telegraph service, committed the crime of falsification of telegrams by deliberately altering the content and diminishing the number of words in messages for personal gain.

RULING: Yes, Joaquin Romero is guilty of falsification of telegrams. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court.

The Court found that Romero, a public official, deliberately reduced the number of words and made alterations to the telegrams delivered to him, transmitting statements different from the originals, with the clear intent of personal gain. This act perverted the truth in the narration of facts. His defense that he made an error in recounting and was forced to omit words was negated by the evidence: the significant discrepancy between the total amount received and the value of stamps affixed, coupled with his own admission of a shortage in postal funds. His actions constituted a manifest violation of a prohibitive law.

The crime committed falls under Article 303 in connection with Article 300 of the Penal Code, which punishes a public official in charge of the telegraph service who originates or falsifies a telegraphic message. Since no mitigating or aggravating circumstances were proven, the penalty of prision correccional in its medium degree was correctly applied.