Title
Supreme Court
Labay vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 241850
Decision Date
Apr 28, 2021
Petitioner convicted for double voter registration under RA 8189 after applying in Batangas and Calapan, despite canceling prior registration; SC upheld conviction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 241850)

Procedural Background

Labay was found guilty of violating Section 10(j) in relation to Sections 45(j) and 46 of RA 8189. Her conviction by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on December 2, 2014, was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) on October 24, 2017, and again in a Resolution dated September 6, 2018, following her motion for reconsideration.

Allegations and Sequence of Events

The Information filed against Labay alleged that on December 26, 2001, she willfully and unlawfully registered as a voter in Calapan City while still being a registered voter in Batangas City. This was compounded by her declaration, under oath, that she did not have any other voter registration. The prosecution established that her voter registration in Batangas City was dated June 22, 1997, and she had voted in the 1998 and 2001 elections prior to seeking new registration in Calapan City.

Defense Claims

In her defense, Labay argued that her registration in Batangas City had been canceled by the election officials prior to her application in Calapan City. She maintained that she acted in good faith under the belief that she was no longer registered to vote in Batangas and claimed she did not cast votes in more than one city.

Ruling of the Lower Court

The RTC sentenced Labay to one year of imprisonment, disqualified her from holding public office, and deprived her of the right to vote. The court characterized the offense as malum prohibitum, meaning the omission of intent constituted a violation of the law irrespective of Labay's understanding of her actions.

Court of Appeals' Affirmation

The CA upheld the RTC's findings, ruling that Labay's actions constituted a clear violation of election laws. Labay's appeal was dismissed, affirming her conviction and the penalties imposed by the RTC.

Issues Presented

The following legal issues were identified for resolution:

  1. Whether Labay was convicted of the same offense as that charged in the Information.
  2. Whether she was adequately informed of the charges against her.
  3. Whether Section 45(j) of RA 8189 was unconstitutional.

Legal Principles and Rulings

The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit, reiterating that its jurisdiction in a Rule 45 petition is limited to questions of law and that factual matters are beyond its scope. The Court emphasized that the information sufficiently detailed the offense, providing adequate notice to Labay regarding the charges of double registration.

Constitutionality of the Statute

The Court dismissed challenges regarding the constitutionality of Section 45(j) of RA 8189, asserting that the statute i

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.