Garcia v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An information was filed charging petitioner Arsenia B. Garcia, along with others, with violation of Section 27(b) of Republic Act No. 6646 for allegedly decreasing the votes of senatorial candidate Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. during the May 11, 1995 canvassing period. The information alleged that Pimentel's votes were reduced from 6,998 to 1,921, a difference of 5,077 votes. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Alaminos City, Pangasinan, acquitted all accused except petitioner Garcia, whom it convicted for violation of Section 27(b) of R.A. 6646. The RTC sentenced her to imprisonment of six (6) months to six (6) years, with disqualification from holding public office and deprivation of suffrage. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence by increasing the minimum penalty to one (1) year. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner Garcia filed a petition for review, arguing that the CA's judgment was based on speculations and surmises, that there was no motive on her part, and that the reduction of votes was not willful or intentional.
Issue(s)
Whether the violation of Section 27(b) of Rep. Act No. 6646 is classified under mala in se or mala prohibita, and whether good faith and lack of criminal intent can be valid defenses for the violation of Section 27(b) of Rep. Act No. 6646. Whether the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 27(b) of Rep. Act No. 6646. Whether the factual findings of the lower courts regarding the petitioner's guilt should be upheld.
Ruling
The 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.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the violation is mala in se or mala prohibita and the relevance of criminal intent: The Court held that violations of Section 27(b) of Republic Act No. 6646 are classified as mala in se, not mala prohibita. Crimes mala in se are inherently immoral, and their commission requires criminal intent. The Court reasoned that punishing unintentional election canvass errors due to overwork and fatigue would be contrary to the law's intent. However, intentionally increasing or decreasing votes is inherently immoral and done with malice and intent to injure another. Therefore, criminal intent is a necessary element for conviction under this provision, and good faith can be a valid defense if proven. On the guilt of the petitioner: The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that petitioner Garcia was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The records showed a significant discrepancy where the grand total of votes for Senator Pimentel was recorded as 1,921 instead of 6,921, a reduction of 5,000 votes. Petitioner, as Chairman of the Municipal Board of Canvassers, admitted to announcing the erroneous figure of 1,921, which was then entered by the secretary. She also prepared the Certificate of Canvass (COC) despite it not being her duty, which the Court viewed as an act to perpetuate the erroneous entry. The Court emphasized that as chairman, her duty was to assure accurate entries, and her failure to exercise maximum efficiency and fidelity constituted criminal responsibility. The fact that the deducted votes were not added to another candidate did not absolve her of liability, as the mere act of decreasing votes is punishable under Section 27(b). On the weight of factual findings: The Court reiterated its consistent holding that factual findings of the trial court, as well as of the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal, especially when they coincide. The Court found no valid reason to disturb the appellate court's factual conclusions regarding the petitioner's role in the erroneous entry of votes.
Main Doctrine
A violation of Section 27(b) of Republic Act No. 6646, which involves the tampering, increasing, or decreasing of votes received by a candidate, is considered a crime that is mala in se, requiring criminal intent. However, the act of decreasing votes, even if the deducted votes are not added to another candidate, is punishable under the said provision.