On the 17th day of  September,  1914,  a complaint was presented against the defendant in the court of the justice of the peace of the pueblo of Pozorrubio, charging him with the crime of faithlessness in the custody of documents.  The defendant was arrested and taken before the justice of the peace for a preliminary investigation.  The justice of the peace, at the close of the preliminary investigation, found that there was probable cause for believing  that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged and held him for trial in the Court of First Instance.

On the 13th day of October, 1914, the prosecuting attorney of the Province of Pangasinan presented a complaint against the defendant, charging him with the crime of faithlessness in the custody of  documents.  The complaint alleged:

"The said accused, Jose R. Gorospe, in or about the month of July, 1914, in the municipality of Pozorrubio, of the Province  of Pangasinan, he then being the postmaster of the said  municipality,  duly appointed and qualified to act  as such, did willfully, maliciously, and criminally remove from a letter addressed by Manuel Venezuela to the commercial firm  called La Fortuna, at No. 360  Calle Santo Cristo, Binondo, Manila, and mailed, on the 13th of the said month of July,  1914, in the  post  office of the  aforementioned municipality of  Pozorrubio,  which was  in charge of  the accused,  Jose  R. Gorospe,  postal money  order No. 1570, inclosed in said letter,  drawn for  one  hundred and  fifty pesos (P150)  and issued by the said  accused, Jose R. Gorospe, in favor of the commercial firm La Fortuna on the date  aforesaid of July 13, 1914, after he had received from the said Manuel Venezuela  the aforementioned sum of one hundred and fifty pesos (P150) for its remittal to the said commercial firm La Fortuna; and that the accused afterwards did appropriate to himself  the  said  sum  of one hundred and fifty pesos (P150) and did, for this purpose, sign at the foot of the said postal money order the Christian name and the  surname of Manuel Venezuela: which  acts have caused serious damage and harm to the said Manuel Venezuela and to the  public weal and constitute the  said crime of faithlessness in the  custody of documents,  committed within the jurisdiction of  this Court  of First In- stance and in  violation of the law."

Upon said complaint, the  defendant was arrested, arraigned, tried, found  guilty  of the crime charged,  and sentenced by the  Honorable  Julio  Llorente, judge, to be imprisoned for a period  of eight years and one  day of prision mayor,  to pay a fine of 1,000 pesetas, to suffer the subsidiary imprisonment provided for by the law,  and to indemnify the  offended person in the sum of P150,  and to pay the costs.

The sentence of the  lower court further disqualified the defendant from holding the  office of postmaster, or  any other analogous office, for a period of eleven years and one day.  From that sentence the defendant appealed to  this court and made several assignments of error.  The assignments of error relate principally to the  sufficiency of the evidence to  show that the  defendant was guilty  of the crime charged.   The appellant also alleges that the penalty imposed by the lower  court was not in conformity  with the law.

After a careful examination of the evidence brought to this court, we are of the opinion that the finding of facts made by the lower court is a true  and faithful relation of the facts proved.   They are as follows:

"On  July  13,  1914, Manuel  Venezuela secured a postal money order for $75 in United States currency, made out to and in favor  of the commercial firm La  Fortuna, of Manila.   The postmaster, who was the accused, issued the receipt for this order.  Manuel Venezuela put the postal money order,  together with  his letter  addressed  to La Fortuna, inside an envelope  which, properly sealed, he delivered to the postmaster to be forwarded by him.  As Manuel Venezuela received no acknowledgement of receipt of the order,  he  called on the postmaster and the latter advised him to write to the La Fortuna and inquire whether this firm had received it.  The said firm replied that it had received no such order.  Then Manuel Venezuela again called on the accused  and the latter promised him that he would  try  to  secure  authorization from the Director  of Posts at Manila to issue to the sender a hew money order or  to  return  him the amount paid  in.  On August 29, 1914, the accused advised Venezuela that the authorization for the issuance of a new order or the return of the P150 had already arrived.  As  the postmaster, according to his statement, had on hand no more than P75 or P80, Manuel Venezuela would not  receive this amount.  The  accused told him to return on Monday, because on that  day he, Gorospe, would be able to make up the sum.  The offended party had to go  on that  day to  Magaldan, as one of his children was sick; but from there made complaint directly to the head  office of the Bureau of Posts, at Manila.  The proper investigation of the case was  made and the postal money order, Exhibit  E, signed by Manuel Venezuela, was found  in the  post office  in  charge of  the  accused.  The offended party denied  having signed the said order.  The accused presented three witnesses who  testified that they had seen Manuel  Venezuela sign it; notwithstanding, upon comparing with each  other the documents Exhibit E, Exhibit C, and Exhibit  F,  it is seen that the signatures  of the Exhibits C and F, which are the unquestionable signatures of  the  offended party, are entirely different from the signature  that appears at the foot  of the Exhibit E. A simple inspection  is enough  to convince one  of  this. Furthermore there is no satisfactory explanation as to how the postal money order came to be in the possession of the offended party when, as he testified,  and in this he was not contradicted, he delivered the  said order, together with the letter addressed to La Fortuna, to the accused  himself. The court believes that the accused  is guilty of the crime charged."

The foregoing facts clearly show that the defendant, as postmaster of the municipality of Pozorrubio, is guilty of the crime charged in the complaint, to wit, faithlessness in the custody of documents, and should be punished in accordance with the provisions of article 360 of the Penal Code. (U. S. vs.. Mariño, 10 Phil. Rep., 652;  U. S. vs.. Peria, 12 Phil. Rep., 362; U. S. vs..  Filoteo, 14  Phil! Rep., 73;  U.  S. vs.. Misola, 14 Phil. Rep., 142; U. S. vs.. De Toro, 15 Phil. Rep., 181; U. S. vs.. Balilo, 17 Phil. Rep.,  459.) We  find that the  lower court committed no error in fixing  the penalty.   (U. S. vs..  Mariño, 10 Phil.  Rep.,  652, 659.)

After a careful consideration  of the entire record brought to this court  in relation with the assignments of  error, we find no reason for modifying the conclusions or sentence of the lower court.  The  same is therefore hereby affirmed, with costs.  So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres,  Carson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.