GR L 5390; (February, 1910) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5390
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MIGUEL M. A. DE TORO, defendant-appellant.
February 10, 1910
FACTS:
Miguel M. A. De Toro, who was the municipal treasurer and postmaster of Culasi, Antique, was accused of intentionally and criminally opening a registered letter and extracting P10. On or about July 15, 1908, Narciso Salazar placed a letter containing P10, addressed to Concepcion Salazar in San Jose, in De Toro’s office.
As postmaster, De Toro received the letter (No. 8) and issued a receipt (Form No. 1549), noting that it had been sent in registered package No. 6. However, he failed to record the dispatch of package No. 6 in the official record (Form No. 1553). The postmaster of San Jose confirmed receiving only registered packages Nos. 8, 3, 4, and 5 from Culasi, but not No. 6.
De Toro claimed he inadvertently enclosed the letter in registered package No. 4 due to being busy and presented a witness to corroborate this. This claim was contradicted by the post-office inspector, who testified that De Toro had previously stated the letter was “probably lost in his office.” The trial court found the defendant’s explanation inconsistent with the records and noted that his witness gave false testimony. It was undisputed that Concepcion Salazar never received the letter or the money. Approximately two months after the letter was registered, and following a complaint, De Toro (who had by then ceased to be postmaster) paid P10 to Concepcion Salazar’s father.
ISSUE:
Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant, Miguel M. A. De Toro, guilty of opening a registered letter and extracting money.
RULING:
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to prove his guilt. The Supreme Court found the decision of the trial court to be thoroughly sustained by the proofs. The Court considered the defendant’s failure to properly record the dispatch of the registered package, the absence of the said package at the destination post office, the inconsistencies in the defendant’s explanations (from “lost” to “inadvertently misplaced”), and the fact that he ultimately paid the missing P10 to the complainant’s father after a complaint was made, even after he had left his post. These circumstances, taken together, demonstrated his culpability. The judgment of the court below, finding him guilty, was therefore affirmed.