People v. Abubakar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Abdugafar Abubakar, a public school teacher and Chairman of the Board of Inspectors of Electoral Precinct No. 3-A in Sulu, was charged with falsification of public document under Article 171, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that on November 14, 1961, during National Election Day, Abubakar, taking advantage of his official position, signed the name of Ambiting Sahibil, a registered voter who was out of the province, on the list of voters, affixed his thumbmark, detached an official ballot, filled it out, and dropped it into the ballot box. This was done despite protests from party inspectors and watchers, causing it to appear that Sahibil had voted when he had not. Procedural History: An earlier information with identical allegations was filed, charging a violation of the Revised Election Code (Republic Act No. 180). During the preliminary investigation, the court ordered an NBI examination of the signature and thumbmark. However, before the investigation concluded, the prosecuting fiscal filed an ex-parte motion to dismiss the election offense information, which was granted. Subsequently, the fiscal filed a new information for falsification of public document under the Revised Penal Code (Criminal Case No. 2674). The Petition: The People of the Philippines appealed the order of the Court of First Instance of Sulu dismissing the information in Criminal Case No. 2674 on a motion to quash filed by the accused. The lower court believed the offense charged was an election offense punishable only under the Revised Election Code, not the Revised Penal Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the acts alleged in the information constitute a violation of the Revised Election Code or the Revised Penal Code. Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the information for falsification of public document.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the lower court erred in dismissing the information. The order appealed from is set aside, and Criminal Case No. 2674 is ordered reinstated for proper further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the acts alleged constitute a violation of the Revised Election Code or the Revised Penal Code: The Court held that the acts described in the information, namely, signing the name of a registered voter who was absent and affixing a thumbmark to the list of voters, and then voting in that person's stead, constitute falsification of a public document under Article 171, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court found that the Revised Election Code, specifically Sections 134 to 139, does not expressly and clearly penalize the act of voting in place of another registered voter as if that voter had personally voted. While Section 138 of the Election Code addresses challenges to voters, it does not criminalize the act of impersonating a voter. The Court emphasized that criminal statutes must be strictly construed, and no act should be pronounced criminal unless clearly made so by law. Therefore, the act in question, not being clearly penalized by the special law (Revised Election Code), should fall under the general penal law (Revised Penal Code). On whether the lower court erred in dismissing the information for falsification of public document: The Court found that the lower court erred in dismissing the information. The dismissal was based on the erroneous belief that the offense was exclusively an election offense. Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code provides that offenses punishable under special laws are not subject to its provisions, but the Code is supplementary to such laws unless they provide otherwise. Section 186 of the Revised Election Code itself states that acts constituting common crimes but not punishable under the Election Code shall be punished under applicable penal laws. Since the act of voting in place of another was not clearly an election offense under the Revised Election Code, it remained punishable as a falsification of public document under the Revised Penal Code. The Court noted that the dismissal of the earlier information for an election offense, followed by the filing of the information for falsification, indicated a recognition that the latter was the appropriate charge. The Court reiterated the rule that the actual recital of facts, not the specification of the violated provision, determines the nature of the offense charged.
Main Doctrine
An act constituting falsification of a public document under Article 171, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, which is not expressly and clearly penalized as an election offense under the Revised Election Code, should be prosecuted under the Revised Penal Code, as the latter serves as supplementary law in such instances.