Case Summary (G.R. No. 244544)
Key Dates
- May 14, 2001: Election day.
- February 27, 2002: Filing of Information before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
- December 6, 2013: RTC Judgment convicting Cardona.
- March 17, 2014: RTC Resolution denying motion for new trial.
- February 9, 2017: Court of Appeals (CA) Decision affirming conviction with reduced penalty.
- December 14, 2018: CA Resolution denying reconsideration.
- July 6, 2020: Supreme Court (SC) Decision reversing conviction and acquitting petitioner.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.
- Republic Act No. 7166, Section 23(a) and (c) – Official Ballots (notice prohibiting marks on ballots except as authorized).
- Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code), Section 195 – Manner of preparing the ballot (prohibiting distinguishing marks).
- Omnibus Election Code, Sections 262 (definition of election offenses) and 264 (penalties, including imprisonment of one to six years with disqualification from public office and loss of suffrage).
Facts of the Case
During the May 14, 2001 elections, Cardona allegedly required voters of Precinct 8-A to sign the dorsal (back) portion of their official ballots. Several voters testified that she insisted on these signatures “because it is the new law” or that they signed after voting for a specific candidate. Cardona admitted allowing early voters to sign but explained she instructed them to sign upon receipt of the ballot, not after voting, and attributed her lapse to a “mental black-out.” She claimed to have corrected her procedure before lunch by consulting a neighboring BEI chairperson and the COMELEC Registrar, then ordered the ballot box closed and noted the incident in the minutes. No further ballots were signed on the back.
Procedural Posture
The RTC convicted Cardona of violating Sections 23(a) and (c) of R.A. 7166 in relation to Section 195 of the Omnibus Election Code, sentencing her to an indeterminate term of two to four years, disqualification from office, and loss of suffrage. The CA denied her appeal but reduced the penalty to one to two years’ imprisonment. The private prosecutor’s participation, the shifting of the burden of proof, and the classification of the offense as malum prohibitum were affirmed. Cardona petitioned the SC for review under Rule 45.
Issues
- Whether the offense of putting a distinguishing mark on a ballot is malum in se or malum prohibitum, and thus whether criminal intent is an essential element.
- Whether Cardona’s lapse was excused by her mental state and immediate corrective measures.
- Whether the prosecution presented sufficient corpus delicti, namely the allegedly marked ballots, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether procedural defects, such as verification formalities and private prosecutor deputation, warranted dismissal.
Analysis
The Supreme Court applied the 1987 Constitution and election statutes. It first declined to dismiss the petition over minor verification defects, prioritizing substantial justice. It clarified that a private prosecutor, duly deputized under Rule 110, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, properly participated in trial.
On the merits, the Court rejected the characterization of all special-law election offenses as malum prohibitum. It held that Section 195’s prohibition against distinguishing marks is mala in se because intentional defacement of a ballot inherently offends the secrecy of suffrage. Following precedents, distinguishing marks require deliberate intent. Unintentional or mistaken marks, or marks made by third parties, do not invalidate a ballo
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 244544)
Procedural History
- The case arose from an Information filed on February 27, 2002, charging Amalia G. Cardona under Section 23(a) and (c) of R.A. 7166 in relation to Section 195 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC).
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baybay City, Leyte, Branch 14, rendered judgment on December 6, 2013, finding Cardona guilty and imposing an indeterminate penalty of two to four years of imprisonment without probation, plus disqualification from public office and suffrage.
- Cardona appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 02354. On February 9, 2017, the CA affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to one to two years of imprisonment.
- A Resolution dated December 14, 2018 denied Cardona’s motion for reconsideration. Thereafter, she filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
Facts of the Case
- On May 14, 2001, during the National and Local Elections in Mahaplag, Leyte, Cardona served as Chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors for Precinct 8A.
- Several voters testified that Cardona instructed them to sign the back of their official ballots after voting, allegedly as a “new law,” and, in some instances, upon discovering they had voted for a particular candidate.
- Cardona admitted permitting voters to sign their ballots but asserted she had directed them to sign immediately upon receipt of the ballots, not post-voting.
- She explained her lapse was due to a “mental black-out,” which she recognized before the lunch break. She then consulted a neighboring BEI chairperson, closed the ballot box, sought guidance from the COMELEC Registrar, and corrected the procedure for subsequent voters.
- No poll watchers or counsel present in the precinct protested the initial instruction, and all ballots were counted during canvassing.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
- The RTC convicted Cardona beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing her admission that she allowed voters to sign their ballots.
- It ruled that her admission shifted the burden of proof to her to show a justifying circumstance, which she failed to establish.
- Her claim of good faith and lack of criminal intent was discounted on the basis that the OEC is a malum prohibitum statute, rendering intent immaterial.
- The RTC imposed an indeterminate penalty of