THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. TIMOTEO SANTOS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The accused in this case was convicted in the court below of the crime of
infidelidad en la custodia de documentos and sentenced to 8 years and 1
day of prision mayor to pay a fine of 3,000 pesetas, together with the
accessory penalties prescribed by law.

The facts in this case are substantially similar to those in the case of
United States vs. Marcelo Mataban (R. G. No. 12565, decided August 25,
1917 [not published]), it appearing that the accused, a letter carrier in the
employ of the Bureau of Posts, was found on the 19th day of May 1917 with a
number of letters in his possession which had been turned over to him for
delivery to the addressees of these letters some time prior to the date when
they were found in his possession and the evidence tends to disclose that the
accused had unlawfully detained and failed to deliver more than one hundred
letters entrusted to him for that purpose; that he had opened many of these
letters; and that his misconduct began some time in the month of November, 1913,
and continued down to the 19th of May, 1917, when the letters were discovered in
his possession. The proof, however, is not conclusive as to the precise date
upon which all of these letters were turned over to the accused, though there
can be no question that some of them were delivered to him at or about the time
they were found in his possession; that he was unlawfully detaining mail matter
which had been deposited in a post-office, and had unlawfully opened some of
this detained mail matter in violation of section 2689 of the Administrative
Code of 1916 (Act No. 2657). The penalty imposed by that provision of the
Administrative Code in force at the time when the offense was shown to have been
committed, being more favorable to the accused than that prescribed in the Penal
Code, we are of opinion that under the doctrine announced in the above cited
case of United States vs. Marcelo Mataban (supra), the former penalty,
and not the latter, is that which should have been imposed upon him on his
conviction of the offense defined and penalized in section 2689 of the
Administrative Code of 1916.

It may be worth while at this time to direct attention to the amendment to
section 2689 of the Administrative Code of 1916 (Act No.J2657), by the enactment
of section 2756 of the Administrative Code of 1917 (Act No. 2711). Under the
provisions of section 2689 of the Administrative Code of 1916, any person
whether an employee of the post-office or not, may be punished for the
unlawfully opening or detention of mail matter in the manner and form therein
set out; whereas under the provisions of section 2756 of the Administrative Code
of 1917, the imposition of the penalties therein set forth are limited to cases
wherein persons “other than an officer or employee of the Bureau of Posts, are
convicted of the unlawfully opening or detention of mail matter.” It follows
that officers or employees of the Bureau of Posts who are found guilty of the
unlawful opening or the detention of mail matter since the date when the
Administrative Code of 1917 became effective (October 1, 1917), cannot be
convicted under the provisions of this section, and must be brought to trial,
and upon conviction, sentenced under the general provisions of the Penal Code
which defines and penalizes such offenses.

We conclude that following the precedent established in the case of United
States vs. Marcelo Mataban (supra) the judgment entered in the
court below should be reversed and that in lieu thereof, judgment should be
entered convicting the defendant and appellant of a violation of the provisions
of section 2689 of the Administrative Code of 1916, and imposing upon him a
sentence of six months’ imprisonment and a fine of P300 with the costs of both
instances. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, Araullo, Street, and Malcolm,
JJ., concur.