Case Digest (G.R. No. 157171)
Facts:
Arsenia B. Garcia, G.R. No. 157171, March 14, 2006, the Supreme Court Third Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. The petition seeks review of the Court of Appeals' judgment affirming the conviction of petitioner for violation of Section 27(b) of Republic Act No. 6646.The prosecution grew out of a complaint-affidavit filed by Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., a senatorial candidate in the May 1995 elections, alleging that during the municipal canvass in Alaminos, Pangasinan, the votes credited to him were unlawfully decreased. An information dated March 30, 1998, charged petitioner (the municipal board chairman) together with Herminio R. Romero (Municipal Treasurer), Renato R. Viray (Public School District Supervisor and board secretary), and tabulators Rachel Palisoc and Francisca de Vera for conspiring to reduce Pimentel’s total from 6,998 votes (per the Statements of Votes) to 1,921 as reflected in the Statement of Votes No. 008423 and Certificate of Canvass No. 436156.
At the Regional Trial Court (Branch 54, Alaminos City), by Decision dated September 11, 2000, the RTC acquitted all the accused for insufficiency of evidence except Garcia, whom it found guilty beyond reasonable doubt under RA 6646, Sec. 27(b), and sentenced to the maximum of six years (with an indeterminate minimum of six months), disqualification from public office, and loss of suffrage; the RTC ordered surrender of her bail bond and commitment. The RTC record shows that during canvass petitioner read precinct subtotals and the grand total, Viray entered the figures, the tabulators used electrical adding machines and gave tapes, and petitioner prepared and signed the COC though that was not strictly her duty.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (decision penned by Assoc. Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria, with Justices Teodoro P. Regino and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. concurring), which affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence by increasing the minimum penalty from six months to one year. The CA denied reconsideration. Petitioner then brought the present petition for review in the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the CA judgment, arguing that the appellate court relied on speculation rather than substantial evidence and that she lacked motive and criminal intent; she also challenged factual inf...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is a violation of Section 27(b), Republic Act No. 6646 a mala in se offense or a mala prohibita offense?
- Can good faith or lack of criminal intent be invoked as a defense to a charge under Section 27(b) of RA 6646?
- Was the evidence sufficient to sustain petitioner’s conviction for decreasing v...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)