GR 157171; (March, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 157171, March 14, 2006
ARSENIA B. GARCIA, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents
FACTS
Petitioner Arsenia B. Garcia, the Election Officer and Chairman of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Alaminos, Pangasinan, was charged with violating Section 27(b) of R.A. 6646 (The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987). The information alleged that during the canvass for the May 1995 senatorial elections, she conspired with other board members to unlawfully decrease the votes of candidate Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. from 6,998 votes to 1,921 votes, a difference of 5,077 votes, as reflected in the final Certificate of Canvass.
The Regional Trial Court acquitted all other accused for insufficiency of evidence but convicted Garcia. It found that she dictated the erroneous figures to the secretary, who merely relied on her, and that she was the one who entered the reduced total in the Certificate of Canvass. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence by increasing the minimum penalty from six months to one year.
ISSUE
Whether a violation of Section 27(b) of R.A. 6646 is a crime mala in se or mala prohibita, and consequently, whether good faith and lack of criminal intent are valid defenses.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the offense under Section 27(b) is mala in se, not mala prohibita. The Court explained that crimes mala in se are acts inherently immoral, where criminal intent must be proven as an element. In contrast, crimes mala prohibita are acts made punishable solely by statute for reasons of public policy, where criminal intent is not necessary. The act of tampering with votes by increasing or decreasing them is inherently immoral, as it is done with malice and intent to injure a candidate’s electoral standing. Therefore, criminal intent is a requisite element.
However, the Court found that the prosecution successfully established Garcia’s criminal intent. The evidence showed she dictated the incorrect figures, entered the reduced total herself despite it being the secretary’s duty, and failed to produce the adding machine tapes during trial, giving rise to the presumption that their production would be adverse to her. These acts, performed in her capacity as the presiding officer, demonstrated a willful and intentional decrease of Pimentel’s votes. Consequently, her defenses of good faith and lack of intent must fail. The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals.