G.R. No. L-13626; October 29, 1918
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELIAS CUETO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
In the June 6, 1916 general election, Elias Cueto was an election inspector in Tiaong, Tayabas. Toribio Briones, a qualified but disabled voter (with failing sight and rheumatism), entered the polling place with a party slate indicating his preference for the candidate Mayo for municipal president. Cueto assisted Briones in preparing his ballot. Instead of writing the name “Mayo” as instructed by Briones, Cueto wrote the name of the opposing candidate, “Magbiray.” Upon exiting the voting booth, Briones noticed the discrepancy and objected. A new ballot was then prepared correctly with the name “Mayo.” Based on these facts, Cueto was charged and convicted of violating the Election Law.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant-appellant, an election inspector, is criminally liable for willfully disregarding his duty to faithfully record the choice of a disabled voter he was assisting, thereby violating the Election Law.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court emphasized that the central purpose of the Election Law (the Australian ballot system) is to ensure the secrecy of the ballot and the free, untrammeled expression of the voter’s will. An election inspector, who takes an oath to perform his duties honestly, has the sole function of mechanically preparing the ballot according to the disabled voter’s wishes. Substituting the inspector’s own choice for the voter’s is a flagrant violation of that official trust and constitutes a fraud against the voter.

The Court held that while an election officer is not liable for a mere mistake in judgment, he is liable for a willful disregard of duty. Cueto’s deliberate act of writing a name different from the one expressly indicated by the voter demonstrated criminal intent. The intent to affect the election result is presumed from the intentional commission of such unlawful acts. Such conduct undermines democratic institutions and deserves severe condemnation.

Regarding the penalty, the law provided for imprisonment of one month to one year, or a fine of P200 to P500, or both. The Court, noting that the maximum penalty was warranted in aggravated cases, found that while Cueto’s purpose was just as culpable, the actual result was less disastrous as the error was corrected. Nevertheless, to deter such violations, a severe penalty was necessary. The Court modified the trial court’s sentence of two months imprisonment and increased it to six months imprisonment and a fine of P250, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus costs.