It was claimed by the prosecution that the defendant in this case, being a public official and discharging at the time the duties  of municipal treasurer and postmaster of the municipality of Culasi, in the  Province of Antique, on or about the 15th day of July, 1908, intentionally and criminally, opened a letter placed in that office by Narciso Salazar, directed to Concepcion  Salazar, San  Jose,  and extracted therefrom the sum of P10 in paper money.

The duties of the accused, as described by the post-office inspector, a witness on the trial of the accused, are in part as follows:

"The postmaster receiving a registered letter, before its reception, must be sure  that it is securely sealed, legibly addressed, and" the postage stamps affixed.   He then issues a receipt from record Form No. 1549, describing the registered letter received, and at the same time makes the same notation in the stub of the registry book.  When he is ready to dispatch  the registered  letter,  he  fills out  Form  1548, return receipt, to the sender, and Form 1550, the registry bill  describing the letter, for  signature by  the  receiving postmaster.   The registry letter and these  two cards are included in  a registered-package envelope, and, when dispatched, the R. P. E., or registered-package envelope, must be entered in the transit outgoing local registered  matter. The number on the R. P. E., or registered-package envelope, must be entered in 1549, after it has been  entered or noted in Form 1553.  The  R. P. E.  is then placed in  a pouch, accompanied by a return receipt,  Form No. 1556, and is dispatched to the next post-office.  The post-office  opening this  mail pouch, finding therein this R. P. E., signs 1556 and returns it to the office of origin."

As to the defendant's not fulfilling the duties of his office, the same inspector says:

"He failed to enter in Form 1553 the alleged  dispatch of registered-package envelope No. 6, which contained, according to his record 1549, registered letter No. 8, addressed to Concepcion Salazar at San Jose.  No. 8 was put in No. 6, and there is no notation of No. 6 having been dispatched. On July 15 there was dispatched from Culasi  registered letter No. 4, and addressed to San Jose, Antique, and also registered package No. 5, addressed to Manila, P. I.  Registered package No. 6 was  not  dispatched from his office, according to the record."

It thus appears from  the  evidence that the  defendant received the letter in question, issued a receipt (Exhibit C), Form No. 1549, upon the stub of which  he noted that said letter,  which was No. 8, had been  sent to its destination  in registered package No. 6, but failed to  note in Form No. 1553 (Exhibit B) that he had remitted said package No. 6. Under the rules and  regulations of the  post-office department applicable to his office, he should have noted upon the stub of Form  No.  1553  (Exhibit B)  the number  of the registered package which contained the letter.  Furthermore, according to the receipt for registered packages (Exhibit E),  Form No. 1556, it  appears that the postmaster of San Jose actually received from the accused, as postmaster at Culasi, only registered packages Nos. 8, 3, 4, and 5.  He did not receive No. 6.

The  accused claimed upon  the  trial that the letter  in question had been by him inadvertently  inclosed in  one  of the registered packages sent on  that day and not in No.  6, as previously claimed by him.  The reason that he gave for this mistake was that he  was extremely busy at the time. For the  purpose of corroborating his  testimony  in  this respect, he  presented  witness Sergio  de  los Reyes, who testified that he was present when the accused received the letter in question and when he placed it  in one of the registered packages.  This testimony of these two  witnesses is contradicted in several important particulars.   The post-office inspector testified that when he was investigating the matter in the office of the accused he asked the accused for the letter in question, and the accused answered that probably  it had been lost in his office.  Upon this subject the court below says:

"It stands  undisputed  in this case that Concepcion Salazar never received this  registered  letter nor  the  money which it contained.  The accused, by his own testimony and that of a clerk in his office, has made an  effort to show that through an unintentional mistake on his part this letter must  have been put in  what  was  known  as registered package No. 4, sent  from the  office  at Culasi on  July 15, 1908.  However, an  examination  of  the record in connection with the sending of that package and particularly the certification cards sent by the postmaster at San Jose shows that that letter could not have been inclosed in that  package. The clerk  of the post-office at  Culasi testifying on  behalf of  the defendant has, in the opinion of  this court,  given such  false testimony that he should  be prosecuted by the fiscal  of this province for perjury."

The evidence of  record fully supports  the court  in  the finding of  fact included in the  above quotation.   It is  undisputed that Concepcion Salazar never received the letter in  question nor the  money which it contained.  It does appear, however, that some two months after the  letter in question had  been  registered, and after  a complaint had been  made because it had  not been duly delivered, the accused, who had ceased to be the postmaster of Culasi, paid over  to  the father of Concepcion Salazar  the P10,  the amount that was alleged to have been contained in the said registered letter.

Upon the whole record we find the decision of the court below thoroughly sustained by  the proofs and the penalty imposed  within the provisions of the  law.

The judgment of the court below is, therefore, affirmed, with the costs against the appellant.   So ordered.

Arellano, C. J.,  Torres, Mapa, Johnson,   Carson,  and Elliott, JJ., concur.