Case Summary (G.R. No. 157171)
Petitioner and Respondents
Petitioner: Arsenia B. Garcia
Respondents: Court of Appeals; People of the Philippines
Key Dates
• May 8, 1995 – National and local elections held
• May 11, 1995 – Canvassing of votes by the Municipal Board in Alaminos conducted
• March 30, 1998 – Information filed in RTC alleging vote reduction
• September 11, 2000 – RTC decision convicting petitioner
• CA decision (date unreported) – Affirmed with modification
• March 14, 2006 – Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Republic Act No. 6646 (Electoral Reforms Law of 1987), Section 27(b)
• Batas Pambansa Bilang 881 (Election Code)
• Indeterminate Sentence Law
Facts of the Case
Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. filed a complaint-affidavit alleging that during the municipal canvass of the May 1995 elections, board members conspired to reduce his recorded votes from 6,998 (per precinct statements) to 1,921 (as entered in the Certificate of Canvass), a discrepancy of 5,077 votes. The complaint charged Garcia, Romero, Viray, Palisoc, and De Vera with willfully decreasing Pimentel’s votes in violation of RA 6646 Section 27(b).
Trial Court Ruling
The Regional Trial Court of Alaminos City acquitted co-accused for insufficiency of evidence but found Garcia guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It held that she willfully decreased 5,034 votes (in relation to BP Blg. 881), imposed a maximum term of six years and, under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, a minimum of six months. Garcia was also disqualified from public office and deprived of suffrage.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s conviction but increased the minimum term from six months to one year. It denied Garcia’s motion for reconsideration, prompting this petition for review.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether Section 27(b) of RA 6646 is mala in se or mala prohibita.
- Whether absence of deliberate intent or good faith constitutes a defense.
- Whether petitioner’s role in reading and recording totals suffices to establish malice.
- Whether failure to produce machine tapes indicates adverse evidence.
Classification of the Offense
The Supreme Court held that vote-tampering under Section 27(b) is mala in se—an inherently immoral act requiring proof of criminal intent. Errors born of fatigue or inadvertence are not culpable; intentional manipulation is.
Intent and Good Faith Defense
Because the offense is mala in se, criminal intent is presumed once the prohibited act is proven. The burden shifts to the petitioner to prove good faith. The Court found no evidence of honest mistake; petitioner admitted announcing and recording the reduced figures.
Canvassing Procedure and Discrepancy
The municipal board followed this sequence:
- Tabulators added precinct subtotals via machine and gave tapes to Garcia.
- Garcia read subtotals; Viray entered them in the Statements of Votes.
- A final machine tape was read by Garcia; Viray recorded the grand total.
Records demonstrated a jump from correct precinct sums (totaling 6,998) to a grand total of only 1,921 votes for Pimentel.
Admission of Responsibility
Petitioner conceded that she read aloud the figure of 1,921 and prepared the Certificate of Canvass, despite that task not falling under her official duty. The Court viewed her actions as deliberate steps to perpetuate the reduction.
Rej
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 157171)
Procedural History
- Petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed before the Supreme Court, seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals’ decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 24547.
- The Regional Trial Court of Alaminos City, Branch 54, convicted petitioner for violation of Section 27(b) of Republic Act No. 6646 and acquitted her co-accused for insufficiency of evidence.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification, increasing the minimum sentence from six months to one year.
- Motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied, prompting the present appeal.
Facts
- In May 1995, during the canvassing of votes in Alaminos, Pangasinan, the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MB of C) processed and tallied votes for Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr.
- Petitioner Arsenia B. Garcia served as Chairperson of the Board; Renato R. Viray was Secretary; Herminio R. Romero was member; Rachel Palisoc and Francisca de Vera served as tabulators.
- The certified Statement of Votes by precincts (SOV Nos. 008417–008423) showed a total of 6,998 votes for Pimentel, but the final Statement No. 008423 and Certificate of Canvass (COC No. 436156) reflected only 1,921 votes—a decrease of 5,077 votes.
- Petitioner admitted announcing the 1,921 figure and preparing the COC, although preparation of the certificate was not her assigned duty.
Issue
- Whether the violation of Section 27(b) of R.A. 6646 is a mala in se or mala prohibita offense, and consequently, if good faith and lack of criminal intent are valid defenses for an election canvassing error.
Applicable Law
- Section 27(b), Republic Act No. 6646 (“Electoral Reforms Law of 1987”), punishes any member of the board of canvassers who tampers, increases, or decreases the votes received by a candidate.
- Distinction between mala in se (inherently immoral acts requiring criminal intent) and mala prohibita (public policy offen