G.R. NO.
157171 MARCH 14, 2006
ARSENIA B. GARCIA
VS.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS:
Based on the complaint of Aquilino Pimentel who ran in the senatorial elections, he charged
elections officer Arsenia Garcia for willfully decreasing the votes received by senatorial candidate
Pimentel from 6,988 votes, as clearly disclosed in the total number of votes in the 159 precincts of the
statement of votes by precincts of said municipality, to 1921 votes with a difference of 5,077. The RTC
convicted accused and gave a prison sentence. On appeal however it was contended that there was no
criminal intent and bad faith in his actions. Respondent on the other hand contends that a violation of
an election law is a mala prohibita and good faith is not a defense.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a violation of section 27b of R.A. 6646 is a mala in se or mala prohibita? And could good
faith and lack of criminal intent be a valid defense?
HELD:
Mala in Se. Generally, Mala in se felonies are defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code.
When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se, even if they are
punished by a special law. Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly established with the other
elements of the crime; otherwise no crime is committed. On the other hand, in crimes that are mala
prohibita, the criminal acts are not inherently immoral but become punishable only because the law
says they are forbidden. With these crimes, the sole issue is whether the law has been violated Criminal
Intent is not necessary where the acts are prohibited for public policy.
An election offense is defined as: (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.
Clearly, the acts prohibited in Section 27(b) are mala in se. For 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.
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. Thus, whoever invokes good faith as a defense has the
burden of proving its existence.
During trial of this case, petitioner admitted that she was indeed the one who announced the
figure of 1,921, which was 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 COC, though it was not her
duty. To our mind, preparing the COC even if it was not her task, manifests an intention to perpetuate
the erroneous entry in the COC.
Neither can this Court accept 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. 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.
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.
