Skip to main content

ARSENIA B. GARCIA v. PEOPLE - CRIMINAL LAW CASE DIGEST


ARSENIA B. GARCIA v. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 157171, March 14, 2006

QUISUMBING, J.:


TOPICS: MALA PROHIBITA AND MALA IN SE IN ELECTION LAWS        

FACTS:

Petitioner Garcia and several members of the Board of Canvassers of Alaminos, Pangasinan allegedly decreased the votes received by senatorial candidate Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. from six thousand nine hundred ninety-eight (6,998) votes as clearly disclosed in the total number of votes in the one hundred fifty-nine (159) precincts of the Statement of Votes by Precincts of the said municipality, to one thousand nine hundred twenty one (1,921) votes reflected in the Statement of Votes by Precincts and Certificate of Canvass.

RTC acquitted all the accused for insufficiency of evidence except for the petitioner who was found guilty for violation of Section 27(b) of R.A. No. 6646.  Petitioner contends that there is no motive on her part to reduce the votes of private complainant.  Respondent contends that good faith is not a defense in the violation of an election law which falls under the class of mala prohibita.

ISSUE:

Whether violation of Section 27(b) of R.A. No. 6646 is considered mala prohibita or mala in se

HELD:

Violation of Section 27(b) of R.A. No. 6646 is considered mala in se.

The Supreme Court stated that, generally, mala in se felonies are defined and penalized in the RPC.  When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se, even if they are punished by 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 act are not inherently immoral but become punishable only because the law says they are forbidden.  With this crimes, the sole issue is whether the law has been violated.  Criminal intent in not necessary where the acts are prohibited for reason of public policy.

The act prohibited in Section 27(b) which is the act of tampering, increasing, or decreasing the votes received by a candidate in any election or refusal after proper verification and hearing to credit the correct votes or deduct such tampered votes by any member of the board of election inspector or canvasser are considered 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.  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.

Read Full text: ARSENIA B. GARCIA v. PEOPLE (full text) - ChanRobles


 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAW SCHOOL ADVICE - HOW TO MAKE A CASE DIGEST : A DETAILED GUIDE ON MAKING A CASE DIGEST

DISCLAIMER:  This entry may look familiar since this is from my other blog, "LAW STUDENT'S COFFEE TABLE" however, I made some minor adjustments and improvements so that you can make an organized, effective, and understandable case digest. Let us start with the basics.  How do you digest a case? Some students and not just law students who have law subjects are often asked by their professors as a requirement for their class to digest cases that are normally assigned by your professors either for your next meeting or for the whole semester.  For someone who does not know how to digest a case, this can be a laborious task as some cases may be as long as reading a whole book.  What are these cases assigned to you by your professors? These are the cases decided by the Supreme Court containing the story of the case and the application of the principles and theories that are discussed under the law.  These cases were assigned to you simply because they are related to t...
Post a Comment
Read more

EVANGELINE LADONGA v. PEOPLE - CRIMINAL LAW CASE DIGEST

EVANGELINE LADONGA v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 141066, February 17, 2005 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: TOPICS: CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF B.P 22                       SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE                       CONSPIRACY FACTS: Spouses Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga was a regular customers of Alfredo Oculam's pawnshop.  Ladonga spouses obtained several loans from Oculam which were guaranteed by several check.  The said checks bounced for the reason of "Closed Account".  Spouses Ladonga failed to redeem the checks despite repeated demand thus three (3) criminal cases for conspiracy to commit violation of B.P. 22. RTC found spouses Ladonga guilty for violation of B.P. 22.  On appeal, Evangeline argued that conspiracy RTC erred in finding her criminally liable for conspiring with her husband as the principle of conspiracy is inapp...
Post a Comment
Read more

JESTER MABUNOT v. PEOPLE - CRIMINAL LAW CASE DIGEST

JESTER MABUNOT v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 204659, September 19, 2016 REYES, J.: TOPICS: MALA IN SE IN SPECIAL LAWS                      INTENT IN MALA IN SE FACTS: William a classmate of the petitioner threw an object that hit the latter's back.  Petitioner, who was a 19 year old and was under the influence of alcohol reacted by boxing William.  Petitioner went outside the classroom, Dennis, another classmate followed him and a fist fight ensued between the two.  Private respondent Shiva a 14 year old and also a classmate of the respondent tried to pacify them, she was  shoved by the petitioner leaving her with a broken rib.  Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 10(a), Article VI of R.A. 7610. Petitioner argued that since and he and Dennis were exchanging punches, he could not have made a deliberate design to injure Shiva.  Without intent to harm Shiva; otherwise, no crime is committed. IS...
Post a Comment
Read more