Scribd
Upload
162 views

Garcia v. CA Case Digest by Xi Toriano

1. Arsenia Garcia, an election officer, was convicted of tampering with election results by decreasing the votes received by a senatorial candidate by 5,077 votes. 2. The Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction but increased her minimum sentence. Garcia appealed, arguing there was no evidence and no motive for her actions. 3. The Supreme Court denied the appeal, ruling that (1) violations of the election law are mala in se or inherently wrong, and (2) good faith is not a valid defense, as the burden is on the accused to prove good faith. Garcia's admission of announcing and preparing incorrect results showed intent to commit the offense.

Uploaded by

HANNAH GRACE TEODOSIO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
162 views

Garcia v. CA Case Digest by Xi Toriano

1. Arsenia Garcia, an election officer, was convicted of tampering with election results by decreasing the votes received by a senatorial candidate by 5,077 votes. 2. The Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction but increased her minimum sentence. Garcia appealed, arguing there was no evidence and no motive for her actions. 3. The Supreme Court denied the appeal, ruling that (1) violations of the election law are mala in se or inherently wrong, and (2) good faith is not a valid defense, as the burden is on the accused to prove good faith. Garcia's admission of announcing and preparing incorrect results showed intent to commit the offense.

Uploaded by

HANNAH GRACE TEODOSIO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

ARSENIA B. GARCIA, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents (G.R. No.

157171, March 14,


2006), QUISUMBING, J.

FACTS

On or about May 11, 1995, which was within the canvassing period during the May 8, 1995 elections, in the Municipality of Alaminos, Province
of Pangasinan, Philippines, the accused, Election Officer Arsenia B. Garcia, Municipal Treasurer Herminio R. Romero, Public School District
Supervisor Renato R. Viray, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Member-Secretary, respectively, of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Alaminos,
Pangasinan, tabulators Rachel Palisoc and Francisca de Vera, conspiring with, confederating together and mutually helping each other, did,
then and there, willfully, and unlawfully decrease[d] the votes received by senatorial candidate Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. from six thousand
nine hundred ninety-eight (6,998) votes to one thousand nine hundred twenty-one (1,921) votes, with a difference of five thousand seventy-
seven (5,077) votes.

In a Decision dated September 11, 2000, the RTC acquitted all the accused for insufficiency of evidence, except petitioner who was convicted
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime defined under R.A. 6646, Sec. 27 (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.”

She is sentenced to suffer an 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; however, accused Arsenia B. Garcia is not entitled to probation; further, she is
sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold public office and she is also deprived of her right of suffrage.

Petitioner appealed before the Court of Appeals which affirmed with modification the RTC Decision, increasing the minimum penalty imposed
by the trial court from six (6) months to one (1) year.

The Court of Appeals likewise denied the motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner contends that (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.

Respondent on the other hand contends that good faith is not a defense in the violation of an election law, which falls under the class of
mala prohibita.

ISSUES

1. Is violation of Section 27(b) of Rep. Act No. 6646, classified under mala in se or mala prohibita?
2. WON good faith and lack of criminal intent be valid defenses for violation of RA 6646?

RULINGS

1. Violation of Section 27(b) of Rep. Act No. 6646 is mala in se.

Generally, mala in se felonies are defined and penalized in 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.

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.

2. No.

Article 3 of the RPC reads:

Article 3. Definitions.
Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly established with the other elements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is committed.
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.

In the case at bar, there is a noticeable discrepancy in the addition of the subtotals to arrive at the grand total of votes received by
each candidate for all 159 precincts. The petitioner admitted that she was indeed the one who announced the figure of 1,921
instead of 6,921, or 5,000 votes less than the number of votes private complainant actually received. Petitioner likewise admitted
that she was the one who prepared the COC (Exhibit A-7), though it was not her duty. The Court believed that preparing the COC
even if it was not her task, manifests an intention to perpetuate the erroneous entry in the COC.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining petitioner’s conviction but increasing the
minimum penalty in her sentence to one year instead of six months is AFFIRMED.

You might also like