Case Digest (G.R. No. 74652)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 74652)
Facts:
Lucio Dulpo v. Hon. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 74652, May 21, 1987, the Supreme Court En Banc, Yap, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Lucio Dulpo was a temporary letter‑carrier at the Bacoor, Cavite Post Office from August 26, 1983 until his employment terminated on April 26, 1985. Upon complaint of Mrs. Lorna Lacorte (formerly Lorna Abelon), Dulpo was charged on July 10, 1985 before the Sandiganbayan in two informations alleging that he feloniously took and carried away two airmail letters allegedly containing international money orders for $150 and $100, received at the Bacoor Post Office on January 8 and January 21, 1985, respectively, which had been entrusted to him for delivery.
At trial the Sandiganbayan found that while the prosecution did not sufficiently prove the asportation of the alleged money orders, it did prove that the two airmail letters entrusted to Dulpo were not delivered; accordingly Dulpo was convicted of infidelity in the custody of documents under Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced in each case to an indeterminate term ranging from two years, four months and one day of prision correccional to eight years and one day of prision mayor, plus fines and temporary special disqualification. Dulpo filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration, both denied by the Sandiganbayan, and thereafter filed the present petition with the Supreme Court.
The prosecution presented evidence that the letters were not returned to the addressee or to the sender and that the money orders were cashed by a third party who had apparently forged the complainant’s name and used a Caloocan address. Dulpo admitted receipt of the letters and that they were not delivered; he claimed he returned them to the sender per standard procedure and recorded the return in a logbook but could not produce the 1985 logbook. The incumbent Bacoor postmaster produced only earlier logbooks and stated no 1985 logbook was found. Dulpo also moved that the Court apply the so‑called “threefold rule” in sentencing; that motion was considered by the Court.
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan err in finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of infidelity in the custody of documents under Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code?
- Did the Sandiganbayan err in imposing an excessive penalty considering the letters were ordinary airmail and the money orders were not proven to have been contained therein?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)