ARSENIA B. GARCIA, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents; G.R. No. 157171 March 14, 2006

Petitioner convicted of election law violation decreasing senatorial candidate’s votes; election law covered is mala in se; good faith is a defense, yet, it wasn't proven

TOPIC: MALUM PROBITUM AS EXCEPTION TO THE REQUIREMENT OF MENS REAS

RATIONALE: Criminal intent is presumed to exist on the part of the person who executes an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary shall appear. Whoever invokes good faith as a defense has the burden of proving its existence.

FACTS:

1. COMPLAINANT: Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr, senatorial candidate

2. ACCUSEDs:

i. ARSENIA B GARCIA, Election Officer, Chairman of Municipal Board of Canvassers of Alaminos, Pangasinan,

ii. Herminio R. Romero, Municipal Treasurer, Vice-Chairman of Municipal Board of Canvassers of Alaminos, Pangasinan,

iii. Renato R. Viray, Public School District Supervisor, Member-Secretary

iv.  Rachel Palisoc, tabulator

v.. Francisca de Vera, tabulator

3. OFFENSE charged: violation of R.A. 6646, SEC. 27. Election Offenses.

4. COMPLAINT:

On May 11, 1995 (within the canvassing period during the May 8, 1995 elections, in the Municipality of Alaminos, Province of Pangasinan)

Accuseds unlawfully decreased  the votes received by complainant. Pimentel, Jr. From 6,998 votes clearly disclosed in the total number of votes in the 159 precincts of the Statement of Votes by Precincts of said municipality to 1,921 votes with a difference of 5,077 votes.

5. RTC ruling: 11 September 2000; acquitted all 4 for lack of sufficient  evidence EXCEPT HEREIN PETITIONER Garcia. GARCIA IS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT  for VIOLATION OF ELECTION  OFFENSE.

SENTENCE:

- imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS as maximum, but applying the INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW, the minimum penalty is the next degree lower which is SIX (6) MONTHS;

- not entitled to probation; further

- disqualification to hold public office

- deprived of her right of suffrage.

6. CA: affirmed RTC's ruling with the modification  of penalty imposed, now six  (6) months to one (1) year. Also denied motion for reconsideration.

7. ARGUMENTS:

PETITIONER GARCIA:	RESPONDENT PIMENTEL:
(1) the Court of Appeals’ judgment is erroneous, based on speculations, surmises and conjectures, instead of substantial evidence; and (2) there was no motive on her part to reduce the votes of private complainant.	good faith is not a defense in the violation of an election law, which falls under the class of mala prohibita.

ISSUE:

Is a violation of Section 27(b) of Rep. Act No. 6646, classified under mala in se or mala prohibits?

Could good faith and lack of criminal intent be valid defenses?

RULING:

YES. The acts prohibited in Section 27(b) are mala in se. Otherwise, even errors and mistakes committed due to overwork and fatigue would be punishable. Given the volume of votes to be counted and canvassed within a limited amount of time, errors and miscalculations are bound to happen. And it could not be the intent of the law to punish unintentional election canvass errors. However, intentionally increasing or decreasing the number of votes received by a candidate is inherently immoral, since it is done with malice and intent to injure another.

YES.  But whoever invokes good faith as a defense has the burden of proving its existence.

Mala in se	Mala prohibita
·       - felonies defined and penalized in the Revised Penal Code ·       - if inherently immoral even if they are punished by a special law ·      - criminal intent must be clearly established ·      - no criminal intent = no crime	-  not inherently immoral but become punishable only because the law says they are forbidden         - sole issue: whether the law has been violated        - Criminal intent is not necessary where the acts are prohibited for reasons of public policy

Republic Act No. 6646

SEC. 27. Election Offenses.- In addition to the prohibited acts and election offenses enumerated in Sections 261 and 262 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, as amended, the following shall be guilty of an election offense:

x x x

(b) Any member of the board of election inspectors or board of canvassers who tampers, increases, or decreases the votes received by a candidate in any election or any member of the board who refuses, after proper verification and hearing, to credit the correct votes or deduct such tampered votes.

Recording of votes process: votes from 159 precints forwarded to> Municipal Board of Canvassers   1)   chairman GARCIA reads figure from precints  2)      sec.of Board Viray enter no. of votes to Statement of Votes (SOV) 3)   SOV forwarded to and tabulated by  Palisoc and de Vera using electrical adding machines 4)   corresponding machine tapes handed to chairman GARCIA 5)   garcia reads subtotal of votes from SOV 6)   subtotal entered in proper column on SOV by VIRAY 7)   palisoc and de vera added the subtotal 8)   corresponding machine tapes handed to garcia 9)   garcia reads the grand total to viray 10) viray enters the grand total figures in the column for grand total in the Statement of Votes

Petitioner admitted that she was indeed the one who announced the figure of 1,921, subsequently entered by then accused Viray in his capacity as secretary of the board.

Petitioner likewise admitted that she was the one who prepared the Certificate of Canvass  (COC), though it was not her duty. Preparing the COC even if it was not her task, manifests an intention to perpetuate the erroneous entry in the COC.

Petitioner’s explanation that the Board of Canvassers had no idea how the SOV and the COC reflected that private complainant had only 1,921 votes instead of 6,921 votes is unacceptable. 

As chairman of the Municipal Board of Canvassers, petitioner’s concern was to assure accurate, correct and authentic entry of the votes. Her failure to exercise maximum efficiency and fidelity to her trust deserves not only censure but also the concomitant sanctions as a matter of criminal responsibility pursuant to the dictates of the law.

Eventhough the votes deducted from Sen. Pimentel Jr.'s votes were not added to another candidate's, does not relieve petitioner of liability under Section 27(b) of Rep. Act No. 6646. The mere decreasing of the votes received by a candidate in an election is already punishable under the said provision.

SC ruling: Petition is DENIED. CA decision sustaining petitioner’s conviction but increasing the minimum penalty in her sentence to one year instead of six months is AFFIRMED.

ADDITIONAL INFO:

> Public policy dictates that extraordinary diligence should be exercised by the members of the board of canvassers in canvassing the results of the elections. Any error on their part would result in the disenfranchisement of the voters. The Certificate of Canvass for senatorial candidates and its supporting statements of votes prepared by the municipal board of canvassers are sensitive election documents whose entries must be thoroughly scrutinized

> Factual findings of the trial court, as well as of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal, particularly where the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court on the matter coincide.